If you haven't seen...

some of Ava's work, be sure to do so now. I believe you'll find it to be one of the better possible uses of your time.

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 57 quicklinks, 121 diaries, 672 comments) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 9:41:22 AM
 

I totally agree

I first met Ava on a message board a couple years ago and knew nothing about her until I saw someone post one of her vids. I have seen everyone of them now and it blows me away that someone so young has sacrificed so much to spread truth and help educate a generation.

by Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 9:48:10 AM
 

Also, if you like the idea and reality of HOPE...

do check Ava's work.

This amazing young woman has done more for America than all the candidates put together, if you don't count Kucinich--and I'd rank her as possibly even ahead of Dennis! If this doesn't kick you in the pants and inspire to do something with your own life and talents, I can't imagine what will.

Thank you, Ava Lowery! 

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 57 quicklinks, 121 diaries, 672 comments) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 9:55:15 AM
 

Thank you Ava

For all you do and have done in bringing awareness to the horror of this war of lies.

by Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 9:44:03 AM
 

And the truth shall set me free...?

A well written article, Ms. Roberts, but... (or if you prefer "yet") why do I get the feeling that Ms. Lowery's "documentary" on Iraqi Freedom veterans will be one-sided - to the left of center politically speaking? 

Oh, yeah!  I know why now.  Ms. Lowery's, "[A]nimations receive media acclaim... and reach an unbelievable audience of Americans who are eager to learn the truth about the Iraq War." - http://www.peacetakescourage.com/page-about.htm .  So, she's a mini-Truther who's come of age - so to be speak?  She's certainly talented and motivated - and has (in all seriousness) the innocence of youth working for her.  And I don't doubt her honest conviction for the safety of the troops.

But what's wrong with a left of center perspective?  Well, it tends (historically even) to cast America in its worst light by over-emphasizing our negatives while neglecting or even dismissing our positives.  I don't have a problem with keeping America "honest"; however, I'm not a big fan of self-flagellation either.

While it's not her battle to fight, Ms. Lowery (as well as others) would do well to note the good that's being accomplished Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere (e.g., http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48522 ).  War to the individual soldier or civilian is not just about the tragedy (although that's certainly present); there's a complex set of emotions and experiences that one acquires in a combat theater.  And it's patently false to pull out the negative or tragic, emphasize it, and leave the impression that it's the norm or... "truth".  

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1459 comments) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 12:04:28 PM
 

Thank you for the compliment on my writing Mr Murphy,

I should make clear that Miss Lowery is in NO way a Truther wrt 911.

To clarify her documentary, she does not slant this doc in the sense you expect and the Vets are not all IVAW Vets. This isn't an anti-war doc in the same sense her videos are anti-war.

I think the jury should remain silent until the project is complete and presented. And, if I know Ava, it will be presented well.

Do you have an issue with Iraqi Vets being heard and telling their stories Mr. Murphy?

by Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 12:20:52 PM
 

No issues from me

Who am I to dictate whether a veteran should speak or not?  I have no issues with a veteran who's willing to speak of their experiences provided they are (1) presented honestly to the extent that they can be recalled and (2) presented within the overall context of the dialogue and not handpicked to support a counter assertion of another.

I would caution a veteran, though, if they're still in the service, to choose their words wisely - especially if they are an officer.  The UCMJ is enforceable for certain offenses such as "Contempt Towards Officials" (UCMJ, Section 888, Article 88) - http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#888.%20ART.%2088.%20CONTEMPT%20TOWARD%20OFFICIALS .

On a personal level, I choose not to speak of my experiences for a number of reasons that no one but me needs to know.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1459 comments) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 1:09:54 PM
 

Well then...

Like I said, let's wait to judge.

I find it curious though, you compliment the writing, you compliment the subject, this is not an opinion piece and yet no *digg* from the illustrious Mr Murphy...hmmm. LOL. 

On a more serious note, Tom I honor the fact you do not wish to speak of your experiences in that realm. As you say, that is no ones choice, but your own and I would never demand you to; however I think when others wish to speak they as well have a right to do so and you should acknowledge that right without the opining. Now, now don't jump the gun here with an opinion just yet...what I mean is who are you or any other Service member to judge another especially if you choose NOT to speak of your own experiences? The experiences are their own afterall.

I am familiar with the Laws although not being in the service I do not have them memorized.

by Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 1:25:29 PM
 

with this

Tom means well...

"I would caution a veteran, though, if they're still in the service, to choose their words wisely - especially if they are an officer."

and he's spot on with the UCMJ. Please read this, Tom's comment as a friendly warning to Vets who do speak out, especially on film. We chose to serve, we pay the price. We gave up our right to openly criticize the Govt. They can burn us for it, and they will. 

Yet ! but only because with the word "but" should never a sentence begin....those of us who DO choose to speak out...we take our risks, say what's on our minds and we stand proud...as usual, in the face of danger.

Tom means well, mark my word. Right, Sir !? 

by Tony Forest (4 articles, 12 quicklinks, 127 diaries, 1142 comments) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 3:23:59 PM
 

I believe it.

I would like to add though...that oath they/you took covers both foreign and domestic...

by Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 3:29:00 PM
 

I don't recall

having taken an oath but then again, I was an enlisted "man" as in -not an officer-. If I recall correctly, and Tom can correct me on this if I'm wrong....Officers do take an oath : to defend the US Constitution from enemies foreign & domestic. I'm sure I have the wording wrong but if I'm at least half right, it should be every Officer's duty to work on an end of the illegal wars and impeachment of the pResident after his direct attacks on our Constitution. Again, I might be wrong on this. Tom can surely set me straight as he is in fact more knowledgeable on the subject.  

by Tony Forest (4 articles, 12 quicklinks, 127 diaries, 1142 comments) on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 12:15:47 AM
 

Military oaths and the support/defense of the Constitution

Enlisted and officer alike in the U.S. armed forces are required by Federal law to take an oath of service - http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm . For enlisted personnel, the Oath of Enlistment is administered by any commissioned officer at the time of enlistment and re-enlistment for a term of service (i.e., contract) into any branch of the military. Enlisted personnel are beholden to the oath for their term of service, after which they are no longer obliged to follow the oath's requirements.
The following is the wording used for the armed forces under Federal command; the only difference with National Guard members is that the state name is included along with a statement of allegiance to that state's governor:

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

For officers, the Appointment Acceptance and Oath of Office are taken at the time of initial commissioning or investment. Where commissions are granted by the President with consent from Congress and are valid until the officer either resigns the commission or is administratively separated from the service, the oath need not be taken again, unless the officer transfers between services (e.g., Army Reserve to National Guard). When an officer retires, they continue to hold the commission and are expected to honor their oath, unless they specifically resign the commission. The following is the wording used for the Oath of Office in the U.S. Army:

"(NAME), having been appointed a (INSERT RANK) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."

Note: Starting in August 2008, the Oath of Office will be administered electronically, although you can continue to receive a "wet" copy, if desired - https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/armydimhrs/business_process/bp_oath.htm .)

If you notice the difference between the two oaths (enlisted and officer), the obeying orders is conspicuously absent from the Oath of Office. The reason for this is that officers because of their leadership positions are taught to be "critical thinkers". Part of that critical thinking is determining whether an order is lawful or unlawful.

As Ms. Roberts states, both enlisted and officer, via their respective oaths, have a responsibility to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". And what constitutes an enemy can get wrapped around what is lawful or not, and a small minority of service members (less than 500) have tried to demonstrate that deploying in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom is unlawful because it is a war of aggression. None of these service members have been successful in their legal cases to date.

The issue is a bit more cut and dried for enlisted personnel in that they are required via their oath to obey the orders of the President (as Commander-in-Chief) and officers appointed over them, in accordance with the applicable regulations and UCMJ. Although the enlisted personnel can attempt to argue the lawfulness of an order to deploy, this usually fails because they did not meet the first obligation of obeying orders. The officer is the appropriate authority for determining an order's lawfulness.

As a result, 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. When an officer believes that an order conflicts with his responsibility as an officer, they must do what their conscience tells them to do. But, the officer must be willing to be held accountable if they are wrong in their analysis of the order.

With that being said, an officer may come to different conclusions than their commander on an issue. When this occurs, military tradition requires that the officer first attempt to work out the difference with the commander. The officer is encourage to consult with other officers, mentors (professors of military science), and military lawyers on the issue. The officer is also encouraged to use their chain of command and go the next higher commander for resolution of the differences or, if warranted, to the Inspector General.

If none of these attempts to resolve the differences are successful, then the officer may "appeal for redress" or submit their resignation (and if accepted resign their commission). If an officer offers to resign on principle on a particular issue and the resignation is not accepted, then, the Oath of Office continues and punishment is enforceable.

For me personally, I believe the U.S. actions in Afghanistan with Operation Enduring Freedom, Iraq with Operation Iraqi Freedom, or Bosnia-Herzegovina with Operation Joint Forge are lawful. Therefore, I would expect that those under my command to deploy to one of these operations, if so ordered.

Additionally, I believe the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by members of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization and of their own volition. No compelling evidence has been presented to date that compels me to believe that the U.S. government either planned or executed the 9/11 attacks as an alleged "false flag operation".

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1459 comments) on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 8:39:39 AM
 

GO PTC !

(soon) Old enough to vote. Finally. Congratulations Ava ! Sorry I haven't been around for so long. Maybe soon....to ask how you voted. And I am adressing Ava with this 'cause I know Ava will be readin' it.

Thanks to lil for the update. I was thinking about PTC just yesterday...feeling ashamed of myself for not stopping by and saying hi to everyone. My, oh my. Our Ava is soon to be 18. What's the world comin' to ?

rossi aka jayhawk aka tf

by Tony Forest (4 articles, 12 quicklinks, 127 diaries, 1142 comments) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 3:06:37 PM
 

Indeed she will be

She was in a meeting earlier, but I am sure she will be reading later. I don't expect her to comment as she is not one to toot her own horn, that's what we're for lol.

by Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 3:13:24 PM
 

Ava simply tells the truth

I’m not left or right.…. those are quickly becoming relatively meaningless terms for me …. except they are for folks still stuck in contrived political memes or who wish to use those artificial divisions as a base from which to criticize others. These - used - to have greater meaning. But, it is always informative to see how some argue, more or less, that the left emphasizes the issues critical of U.S. involvement as opposed to a Faux-ian ‘fair and balanced’ perspective.… Are there great goods deriving from the arguably illegal invasions and destructions of two nations? In any way commensurate to the obvious great evil we have perpetrated? Frankly, I’m struggling here to identify anything positive about American’s Imperial ‘adventures’ in Afghanistan and Iraq. -- you know, in order to be ‘fair and balanced’….. It really is hard to balance 1.2+ million dead in Iraq alone.… and 4+ billion refugees.… I suppose, had the gluttonous U.S. corporations actually gotten the electricity and water to work in Baghdad that might count? No, if you support aggressive wars against others to steal resources and to set the stage for further wars to steal yet more resources in Central Asia …. this is neither left nor right.… it is simply psychopathology.

I saw Ava Lowery’s work when she first began and thereafter. I didn’t see it as ‘left’ or ‘right’. It simply caused in me nearly unbearable grief. To disparage her work with a political label is a disrespect for her and all who have died and suffered, American soldiers blindly following murderous and avaricious leaders and the civilians murdered and maimed. I could only see her work as simply telling the truth.

by richard (0 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 708 comments) on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 6:18:25 AM