A Marine speaks out

[fastpat]

This article is from an active duty Marine, currently at 29 Palms.

A Young Marine Speaks Out

by Philip Martin

I'm sick and tired of this patriotic, nationalistic and fascist crap. I stood through a memorial service today for a young Marine that was killed in Iraq back in April. During this memorial a number of people spoke about the guy and about his sacrifice for the country. How do you justify 'sacrificing' your life for a war which is not only illegal, but is being prosecuted to the extent where the only thing keeping us there is one man's power, and his ego. A recent Marine Corps intelligence report that was leaked said that the war in the al-Anbar province is unwinnable. It said that there was nothing we could do to win the hearts and minds, or the military operations in that area. So I wonder, why are we still there? Democracy is not forced upon people at gunpoint. It's the result of forward thinking individuals who take the initiative and risks to give their fellow countrymen a better way of life.

When I joined I took an oath. In that oath I swore to protect the Constitution of the United States. I didn't swear to build democracies in countries on the other side of the world under the guise of "national security." I didn't join the military to be part of an Orwellian ("1984") war machine that is in an obligatory war against whoever the state deems the enemy to be so that the populace can be controlled and riled up in a pro-nationalistic frenzy to support any new and oppressive law that will be the key to destroying the enemy. Example given – the Patriot Act. So aptly named, and totally against all that the constitution stands for. President Bush used the reactionary nature of our society to bring our country together and to infuse into the national psyche a need to give up their little-used rights in the hope to make our nation a little safer. The same scare tactics he used to win elections. He drones on and on about how America and the world would be a less safe place if we weren't killing Iraqis, and that we'd have to fight the terrorists at home if we weren't abroad. In our modern day emotive society this strategy (or strategery?) works, or had worked, up until last month's elections.

My point in this; to show that America was never nationalistic. If anything they were Statalistic (giving their allegiance to the state of their residence). This is shown in the fact that the founders created states with fully capable and independent governments and not provinces that were just a division of the federal government. These men believed that America was a place where imperialistic values would be non-existent. Where the people trying to make their lives better by working hard, thinking, inventing and using the free market would tie up so much of normal life that imperialistic colonization and the fighting of wars thousands of miles away for interests that are not our own would be avoided. They believed this expansion of power could be left to the European nations, the England, France and Spain of their time. However this recent, and current influx of nationalistic feeling has created an environment where giving up your rights, going to a foreign country to fight a people who did not ask for us to be there, nor did their leader do anything to warrant us being there, and dying would be considered honorable and heroic. I don't believe it anymore. I don't believe it's right for any American to go along with it anymore. Yes I know that we in the military are bound by the UCMJ and somehow don't fall under the Constitution (the very thing we're suppose to be defending) but sooner or later there is a decision that every American soldier, marine, airmen and seamen makes to allow themselves to be sent to a war that is against every fiber this country was founded on. I know that when April rolls around I will be thinking long and hard on that decision. Even though we in the military are just doing as we're told we still have the moral and ethical obligation to choose to do as we're told, or to say, "No, that isn't right." I believe that if more troopers like me and the professional military, the officers and commanders, start standing up and saying that they won't let themselves or their troops go to this illegal war people will start standing up and realizing what the heck is going on over there.

The sad fact of the matter is that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq. We are fighting the Iraqi people who feel like a conquered and occupied people. Personally I have a hard time believing that if I was an Iraqi that I wouldn't be doing everything in my power to kill and maim as many Americans as possible. I know that the vast majority of Americans would not be happy with the Canadian government, or any other foreign government, liberating us from the clutches of George W. Bush, even though a large number of us would like that, and forcing us to accept their system of government. Would not millions of Americans rise up and fight back? Would you not rise up to protect and defend your house and your neighborhood if someone invaded your country? But we send thousands of troops to a foreign country to do just that. How is it moral to fight a people who are just trying to defend their homes and families? I think next time I go to Iraq perhaps I should wear a bright red coat and carry a Brown Bess instead of my digitalized utilities and M16.

Notice I never once used the word homeland in any of this. I have a secondary point I want to bring up now. Never once was the term homeland ever used to describe the country of America until Mr. Bush began the department of homeland security after the 9/11 attacks. Taking a 20th century history class will teach us that the most notable countries in the last century that referred to their country in this way were Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Hitler used the term fatherland to drum up support, nationalistic support, for his growing war machine. He used the nationalism he created in the minds of the Germans to justify the sacrifice of their livelihood to build the war machine to get back their power from the oppressive restrictions the English and French had put on them at Versailles. This is the same feeling that has been virulently infecting the American psyche in the last hundred years. This is the same feeling that consoles a mother after her son is killed in an attempt to prosecute an aggressor's war 10,000 miles away. It's also known as Patriotism these days, but I say, "No more." No more nationalistic inanity, no more passing it off as patriotism. Patriotism is learning, and educating oneself to understand what their country really stands for.

I heard a lot during the memorial service about how the dead Marine did so much good for others and how his helping others was like a little microcosm of America helping because we have the power to do so. Well if we have the power to help people why aren't we helping in Darfur where hundreds of thousands of people have died in the last 10 years. Saddam was convicted and sentenced to death for killing 143 Shiites who conspired to assassinate him. (I know all you "patriotic" Americans would be calling for the heads of anyone who conspired to assassinate supreme leader Bush). And yet we spend upwards of 1 trillion dollars and nearing 3,000 lives to help these Iraqis when they don't even want us there. Not to mention we don't have the legal justification to be there. I guess we should wait around for the omnipotent W Bush to decide who we should use our superpowerdom to help next. It's about time to throw him and the rest of the fascists out. Moreover it's about time to start educating Americans about their past and history, and letting them know that imperialistic leaders are not what the founders of this great country wanted.

December 8, 2006

Philip Martin has been a Marine for 2 years. He is in the infantry (a "grunt"), and spent 7 months in the al-Anbar province of Iraq. He went on more than 180 combat patrols in and outside of the city of Fallujah, where he was hit with 2 IEDs (luckily never injured) and was involved in a number of firefights. He is currently stationed in Twentynine Palms, CA, and due to return to Iraq for a second deployment in April 2007. He is 21-years-old.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/martin-p1.html

[Hugh R]

Philip Martin, if that is his real name will get court martialed.

I remember decades ago when Daniel Ortega was President of Nicaragua, (as he is again) he said the CIA was mining Managua (sp?) harbor, he said what would the american people think if I started mining New York Harbor? The US has a well documented history of interfering with many, many democratically elected governments whose politics we don't agree with, and proping up lots of dictators who are "Friendly" to us. A few that come to mind are Allende (Chile) Noriega (Panama), Pop Doc Duvalier (Haiti), Idi Amin Dada (Uganda), Marcos (Phillipines) to name a few.

[Danny_Ocean]

Originally posted by Hugh R
Philip Martin, if that is his real name, will get court martialed.

God, Country, Corps...

Semper Fi

D. Ocean, USMC
1980 ~ 1984

[Hugh R]

USMC, 1970-72
MOS 0844 Forward Observer, 175 mm Guns and 8" Howitzers

Semper Fi

[Christien]

Originally posted by Hugh R
Philip Martin, if that is his real name will get court martialed.

Really? Can you get court martialled for speaking out against the corps/gov't/etc?

(I'm really asking - I don't know jack about military regulations)

[Hugh R]

Absolutely, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, when your in the service, the government "owns" you and it comes under the "Sedition" prohibition. Here's a link http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-94.htm

[Danny_Ocean]

Originally posted by Christien
Really? Can you get court martialled for speaking out against the corps/gov't/etc?

(I'm really asking - I don't know jack about military regulations)

A cursory search of the UCMJ reveals the following Articles:

Article 888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

894. ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.

899. ART. 99. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY
Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy--
(1) runs away;
(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;
(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;
(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;
(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;
(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;
(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;
(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or
(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle;
shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court- martial may direct.

900. ART. 100. SUBORDINATE COMPELLING SURRENDER
Any person subject to this chapter who compels or attempts to compel the commander of any place, vessel, aircraft, or military property, or of any body of members of the armed forces, to give it up to an enemy or to abandon it, or who strikes the colors or flag to any enemy without proper authority, shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.


917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

934. ART. 134. 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.


Nonetheless, I'd consider the source of this article

Most likely a hoax perpetrated by some sandal-wearing, dirty hippie, liberal anti-government whack-nut.

Disclaimer: I'm not a military lawyer...I just play one on TV.

[fastpat]

Well I see that the responses are nothing but shameful support for restricting this man's intrinsic right to free speech.

He won't get court marshalled, he did not break the law.

He's helping keep some of his fellow marines alive, something to be proud of.

[Chocaholic]

Of course, everyone is assuming that the copy/paste above was ACTUALLY written by this marine, and not another blatant, fabricated liberal attempt to pollute the integrity and confidence displayed routinely by our forces.

But...what do I know?

[rcecale]

Originally posted by fastpat
Well I see that the responses are nothing but shameful support for restricting this man's intrinsic right to free speech.

And I see your posts continue to call for the traitorous act of sedition. Something you should be ashamed of. But, considering the source, I would expect nothing short of this from you. You are truly pathetic.

Semper fi, Devildogs!!!

Randy

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Chocaholic
But...what do I know?

So far, absolutely zero. First of all, thinking that lewrockwell.com is liberal is the height of silliness.

[on-ramp]

that's a good article.

"The sad fact of the matter is that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq. We are fighting the Iraqi people who feel like a conquered and occupied people."

how true. this administration/Congress has ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of people without any consequences.

i find this is amazing.

[Dan in Pasadena]

Oh oh, I find myself agreeing with Pat on this one....so far.

Doesn't it strike anyone besides me as amazing, utterly outrageous that it is against miliary regulation to voice an opinion, to "...use contemptuous words..."?

Disagreeing with your President, evenly loudly so = sedition = treason? If you're in the military or have been, what the hell were you fighting for or prepared to fight for if it wasn't the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all that it guarantees....INLCUDING the parts you don't especially like?

On Ramp, Nostatic, I'm with you. Randy, thank you and all who served for your service, really....but I just don't get your stance...not even a little bit.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Dan in Pasadena
Oh oh, I find myself agreeing with Pat on this one....so far.

Doesn't it strike anyone besides me as amazing, utterly outrageous that it is against miliary regulation to voice an opinion, to "...use contemptuous words..."?

Disagreeing with your President, evenly loudly so = sedition = treason? If you're in the military or have been, what the hell were you fighting for or prepared to fight for if it wasn't the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all that it guarantees....INLCUDING the parts you don't especially like?

On Ramp, Nostatic, I'm with you. Randy, thank you and all who served for your service, really....but I just don't get your stance...not even a little bit.

It's a really handy way for those running things, the ruling elite, and involved in warfare to prevent those with direct knowledge of events from telling truth, enabling the warfare to continue and guys like fintstone et al to continue to say that you have to be there to understand and that every soldier supports the war.

This young man's information and opinion is valuable, and he's heroic for presenting it in public.

[Dan in Pasadena]

Originally posted by fastpat
....This young man's information and opinion is valuable, and he's heroic for presenting it in public.

Agreed.

By the way, nice sharing an opinion with you Pat. Now that; in my opinion, THAT'S being American!

I probably disagree or don't "get" 90% of your opinions and undoubtedly you think I am a nutcase too - no harm meant or taken...nevertheless, nice being Americans together. Have good one!

[Hugh R]

Originally posted by fastpat
Well I see that the responses are nothing but shameful support for restricting this man's intrinsic right to free speech.

He won't get court marshalled, he did not break the law.

He's helping keep some of his fellow marines alive, something to be proud of.

Where did I say I supported restricting his free speech? I stated what I believe to be the likely outcome. Like it or not, you don't have free speech when your in the military. The government literally owns you during your enlistment. As a former military person, you should certainly know this.

[Christien]

Yeah, I gotta agree with Dan and Pat on this one - Dan hit it on the head when he said the armed forces should be doing everything in their power to uphold the constitution, and one of the biggest parts of that is the right to free speech. Does the UCMJ override the constitution? I thought the constitution was the absolute top of the pile in terms of precedence. Here in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our constitution) takes precedence over any law or regulation, and Charter challenges commonly strike down laws (or parts of them) that contravene the charter.

[lendaddy]

The obvious question is: why did this guy enlist during the war then?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by lendaddy
The obvious question is: why did this guy enlist during the war then?

What makes that relevant?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by fastpat
What makes that relevant?

Was the war any less illegal when he volunteered to fight in it?