Soldiers and Democracy: Know Your Rights!
by Jonathan W. Hutto, Sr.
On November 9, 1969, The New York Times published an open appeal by 1,365
active-duty service members calling for an end to the Vietnam War and for
no
punishment for participating in the historic Vietnam Moratorium march. The
petition of these soldiers, representing 80 bases and ****ps throughout the
world, had a huge impact and helped establish the (limited) civil
liberties
and rights GIs have today. The members of the GI Movement risked their
careers and personal security by signing this petition and participating
in
subsequent actions.
One of those signers was David Cortright, who went on to write Soldiers in
Revolt, the definitive 1975 chronicle of the GI Movement. He was part of
an
activist group of GIs at Fort Hamilton, New York. Thirty-five of the 60
personnel in his company signed the petition and several traveled to
Wa****ngton, D.C. for the historic march.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1931859272?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1931859272&adid=0V8Z4Q9DCFPK4NKG12PQ&
I contacted David to arrange for a community meeting with some of my
civilian and active-duty colleagues in June 2006 in Norfolk, Virginia. Its
success led us to ponder whether something similar could be organized
around
the Iraq War. We wanted to build a movement where service members could
express their dissent in a legal, constructive way. I began researching
the
rights and responsibilities of active-duty service members. The most
comprehensive source I found was the website for the Central Committee for
Conscientious Objectors (CCCO), which was very helpful in determining the
limits for GIs in petitioning their government for redress of grievances.
I also found an old leaflet from the Military Project, an organization
based
out of New York, which seeks to educate active-duty service members about
their civil liberties and constitutional rights. The leaflet had several
DOD
directives that listed limited rights to express dissent:
DOD Directive 7050.6
Military Whistle-blower Protection Act
This Act is the foundation for the Appeal For Redress, our organization.
It
establishes that every soldier can communicate individually with a member
of
Congress and Inspector General (IG) without reprisal. Punishment
constitutes
a violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Failure
to Obey Order or Regulation. Once a reprisal is initiated, the soldier can
file a complaint with an IG and seek redress from his Commanding Officer
(CO). If the CO fails to provide it, the military member has the right to
file an Article 138 complaint against the CO seeking redress and
restoration
to the member of any rights, privileges, property or status to which the
member would have been entitled had the wrong not occurred.
Guidelines for Handling Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of
the Armed Forces
This directive explained how to conduct the redress campaign.
Distributing newspapers and/or publications: Soldiers can distribute
newspapers-even ones critical of government-at official outlets on base
such
as post exchanges and military libraries.
Publication of Underground Newspapers: A member of the military may write
for an underground publication if it is done off duty and on nonmilitary
equipment. Articles in the publication may not contain slanderous language
that is punishable under federal law.
Participation in political demonstrations: Soldiers can participate in
political demonstrations while off base, off duty, in the United States,
out
of uniform and not acting on behalf of the military. Military members
cannot
attend demonstrations where violence is likely to occur.
DOD directive 1344.10
Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty
Military members:
.. may express their personal views on political and social issues.
.. may make monetary contributions to a political organization.
.. may attend political meetings, rallies, or conventions when not in
uniform.
.. may write a letter to a newspaper editor expressing personal views on
public issues.
.. are prohibited from making a contribution to and soliciting or
receiving a
contribution from another member of the armed forces or a civilian officer
or employee of the United States to promote a political cause, including a
political campaign.
.. are prohibited from using contemptuous words against officeholders and
government officials.
DOD Directive 1354.01
DOD Policy on Organizations That Seek to Represent or Organize Members of
the Armed Forces in Negotiation or Collective Bargaining
Military members may:
.. join or maintain member****p in any lawful organization or association
not
constituting a "military labor organization."
.. present grievances concerning the terms or conditions of the service of
such member in accordance with established military procedures.
.. petition the Congress for redress of grievances.
The Strom Thurmond Anti-Union Law
In 1976 the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) was
considering a union drive in the military. The drive was based on the
recent
GI Movement and the American Service Members Union (ASU), the first
attempt
to organize a service members union within the United States. At its
height
in 1970 the ASU had 15,000 members. Although it had all but disappeared by
1973, with GI activists being discharged and transferred in the thousands,
the ASU was a bold example of the political potential of lower-ranking GIs
(it was solely for lower-level troops).
Strom Thurmond led the charge to outlaw unionization and organizing within
the military when he introduced S. 3079 during the 94th Congress. Before
the
bill was signed, the military made it law in October of 1977 through the
establishment of DOD Directive 1354.1, prohibiting all forms of
"collective
job-related action" within the ranks and banning union solicitation on
base.
The directive prohibits soldiers from joining, maintaining or soliciting
member****p in a labor organization and from striking.
The Appeal for Redress, however, has shown that active-duty troops can
express themselves legally to the government and civil society at large.
Using the limited rights we have under the Military Whistle-blower
Protection Act and DoD regulations, we mobilized more than 2,000 U.S
military members in 10 countries to send appeals to their congressional
members to end the Iraq War.
But there are limitations to our work. Commanders do not legally have to
recognize active-duty organizations. Many soldiers are unaware of their
political options. Most fear potential reprisals for speaking out. Not
breaking any laws does not prevent retaliation by the brass. Only the fear
of mass action by enlisted men and women can prevent retaliation. The
Appeal
for Redress is a model for a successful GI movement for the 21st century.
Human Rights training in boot camp and the sup****t of the veteran/civilian
community are key to success.
Human rights training in boot camp. Boot camp is where service members
must
receive a firm grounding on all of their rights and responsibilities. They
must be educated about their rights under Article 138 of the Uniform Code
of
Military Justice and their right to seek out an IG to correct misconduct
by
the chain of command and to appeal to higher authority if the wrong has
not
been addressed. These complaints are sent to the General Court-Martial
Convening Authority, comprised of general and/or flag officers. Unlike
Equal
Op****tunity advisors, IGs are independent of the command structure, DoD
civilians mandated by federal law to investigate and re****t to commanders
on
mission performance, discipline, efficiency and the morale of the armed
forces. They do not have the authority to correct the wrong, but their
findings carry weight with commanders.
Veteran and civilian sup****t is imperative. The appeal's success was
largely
due to the sup****t of major veteran peace organizations, which formed a
task
force that sup****ted the troops in terms of supplies, contacts, legal
sup****t and overall coordination. Civilian activists and community
organizers were also instrumental. The Military Project, a civilian
organization in New York City, provided key sup****t in their publications.
It is my hope that with the sup****t of these peace activists, the appeal
will develop into a permanent active-duty sup****t network.
This network must work with influential, established nongovernmental
organizations and members of Congress. Organizations such as the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP), and Amnesty International USA (AI) can be
effective
in helping GIs maintain, enhance, and become educated about their civil
liberties. The ACLU can help publish manuals that educate GIs on their
rights; the NAACP can help organize hearings with the Congressional Black
Caucus addressing the surge in Nazis and white supremacists joining the
military. Former California Congressman Ron Dellums used his position on
the
House Armed Services Committee to investigate racism and other misconduct
within the military in the wake of hate crimes committed by troops in the
early nineties. This type of advocacy is needed today from Congress. AI
can
help the GI movement by challenging the unionization ban using the
Universal
Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR). Countries such as South Africa,
Belgium
and Australia grant their troops unionization rights.
The history of social justice movements demonstrates that when all legal
means are exhausted, those seeking relief will use unsanctioned strategies
if the government fails to act. During the struggle for the abolition of
slavery in the 1800s, the denial of Dred Scott's human rights in 1857 led
to
John Brown's raid in 1859. During the Vietnam era, the brutality of
Chicago's
police against antiwar demonstrators in 1968 led to a mass movement
against
the war. The Appeal For Redress gives our leaders the platform to address
the concerns of GIs before they lose faith in their government.
Navy Petty Officer Jonathan Hutto is a founding member of Appeal for
Redress. He can be contacted at antiwarsoldier@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is
an
excerpt from Anti-War Soldier: How to Dissent Within the Ranks of the
Military, forthcoming from Nation Books.
http://www.appealforredress.org/
Too bad it's now considered unpatriotic and maybe illegal to exercise
those
rights.
|
