Veterans: Military Curbing Free Speech
By Kirsten Scharnberg
The Chicago Tribune
Sunday 24 June 2007
Protesters in uniform could be downgraded,
lose their benefits.
The young combat veteran stared at the letter in disbelief when it arrived
in his mailbox a few months ago.
The Marine Corps was recommending him for "other than honorable discharge."
The letter alleged he had violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice by wearing
part of his uniform during an anti-war rally. Furthermore, the letter accused
him of being "disloyal," a word hard to swallow for a man who had
risked his life to serve his nation.
"All this because I have publicly opposed the war in Iraq since I came
back from it," said former Marine Sgt. Liam Madden, 22.
Madden Is Not Alone.
At least two other combat veterans who have returned from tours in Iraq and
become well-known anti-war advocates have seen the military recommend them for
less-than-honorable discharges. One of them is a young man 80 percent disabled
from two tours who was threatened with losing his veteran's disability benefits
if he continued to protest in uniform.
Critics - including some groups that have been the most supportive of the
war - say the crackdown on these men constitutes a blatant attempt to quiet
dissension in the ranks at the very time more and more members of the armed
forces are publicly questioning the war they are being sent to fight.
"I may disagree with their message, but I will always defend their right
to say it," Gary Kurpius, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, said in a scathing statement this month under the headline, "VFW
to Corps: Don't Stifle Freedom of Speech."
"Trying to punish fellow Americans for exercising the same democratic
rights we're trying to instill in Iraq is not what we're about," he said.
"We Don't Restrict Free Speech"
The military defends its decision to punish the men, stating that its policies
regarding acceptable forms of protest are clear. Military guidelines state that
troops may attend demonstrations only in the United States, only when they are
off base and off duty, and only when they are out of uniform.
"We don't restrict free speech," Maj. Anne Edgecomb, an Army spokeswoman,
said. "It's the uniform that gets people in trouble. When you wear the
uniform, you are representing the armed service behind that uniform, and it
is against the military code of justice to protest in uniform."
Madden and the two other Marines were clearly documented wearing at least part
of their uniforms at public protests. (Though all three had completed their
active-duty service, they remained reservists; the military argued that the
Pentagon's conduct codes still applied to them, an assertion that seems likely
to make its way to federal court.)
The military, with its hierarchical rank structure and absolute adherence to
following orders, has never been an institution that takes kindly to debate
from within. But today, as an increasingly unpopular war drags on and troops
are being sent on multiple combat tours, the criticism from veterans and even
those on active duty is reaching a fevered pitch.
Perhaps the most telling part of such criticism is how open disgruntled troops
are becoming despite the risk to their careers - signing their names to furious
letters printed in military-owned newspapers; speaking on the record to reporters
in Iraq about how badly the mission is going; writing members of Congress. And
then there are the protests in uniform, a throwback to the Vietnam War, when
veterans such as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) denounced the war in weathered fatigues.
Many of the protests involving vets in uniform are all-out street theater,
like one in Washington last spring where protesters staged a mock patrol, manhandling
people at simulated gunpoint in order to illustrate how they say Iraqis are
treated by American troops. Just last week in Chicago, a similar protest took
place. The intended subtext of the uniformed protests is apparent: that protesters
have additional credibility because they have witnessed the war, that the uniforms
now being used in protest have walked the real-life battlefield.
"Guys like us - veterans who served but then came to believe the war
is not only wrong but illegal - are not who the military wants speaking on
a national stage," Madden said.
If Madden and the other Marines initially feared their high-profile discharge
cases would serve to silence protest, the opposite seems to be slowly and quietly
happening. The men's cases have spurred dissenters to voice their disapproval
of the war while remaining within military guidelines.
Take, for example, DOD Directive 7050.6. It provides the right of service members
to complain and to request redress of their grievances, including to members
of Congress. Some 2,000 active-duty and reserve troops have used the protection
of that directive to sign "An Appeal for Redress," an initiative that
sends troops' demand to end the war to Congress.
The wording of the appeal is intended to be patriotic and respectful while
unequivocally anti-war: It begins, "As a patriotic American proud to serve
the nation in uniform ... " It ends, "Staying in Iraq will not work
and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home."
Of the three Marines caught protesting in uniform, the case of former Cpl.
Cloy Richards has garnered the least public attention - but the most within
military circles. The 23-year-old from Missouri has been deemed 80 percent disabled
from two tours in Iraq; he agreed this month before a military discharge review
board that he would no longer protest in uniform to keep his honorable discharge
and his veterans benefits that come to some $1,300 per month.
But that hasn't silenced Richards' protest. He now attends anti-war demonstrations
in civilian clothes; his mother attends as well, wearing his old uniform for
him.
Veterans Group Against War
Others are also creative. A young infantryman based at Ft. Drum, near Watertown,
N.Y., home to the 10th Mountain Division, well knows the fine balancing act
it is to be a uniformed member of the military and a committed anti-war activist.
Phillip Aliff - he asked that his rank not be used, saying that would be against
regulation - is the president of the Ft. Drum chapter of Iraq Veterans Against
the War.
Once a week, Aliff and the other IVAW members finish their duty day in uniform,
change into civilian clothes and drive off base to meet at the Different Drummer,
a cafe in Watertown modeled on the anti-war coffeehouses of the Vietnam War
era.
"I'm definitely walking the line," Aliff said, admitting that none
of his direct commanders know of his anti-war activities. "But we who protest
have a collective experience. We took part in it ... so when even we say it's
wrong, that carries some real credibility."
The Ft. Drum group has grown from two members when it was launched two months
ago to 12 today. Aliff said the members encourage each other to speak out despite
fear of reprisal.
"None of us wants to get in trouble," Aliff said. "None of us
wants to lose our jobs or our GI bills or our benefits. But we also feel we
have to be willing to do what's right."
By meeting off base and out of uniform, the Iraq Veterans Against the War members
stay just inside the line of military code legality. They don't distribute literature
on base or openly recruit new members at work.
"We know we have something to say so we are finding legal ways in which
to say it," Aliff said.
A Zogby poll last year showed that war critics like Aliff may not be entirely
on the fringes of the mainstream military. The poll of 944 U.S. military personnel
in Iraq conducted by Zogby International and Le Moyne College found that 72
percent believed the U.S. should pull out within one year.
"The unrest has been churning below the surface for a while," said
Madden, who is still waiting to see what will become of his less-than-honorable
discharge recommendation. "But now the signs of that unrest are starting
to be readily apparent."
1996 Rule Prohibits Protesting in Uniform
According to a Department of Defense directive issued in 1996 and renewed in
2003, "members of the Armed Forces are prohibited from participating in
off-post demonstrations when they are on-duty, in a foreign country, when their
activities constitute a breach of law and order, when violence is likely to
result, or when they are in uniform."
The military has said the three Marines who have faced less-than-honorable
discharges for violating the uniform portion of that code at a war protest would
have faced the same punishment had they been at any other kind of rally.
"If it had been a pro-war rally, it would still have been a violation,"
Col. Dave Lapan, a Marine Corps spokesman, said of one of the cases earlier
this month.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story