Could this be "the key"?
Ron Paul brings it up all the time, but it never really hit home until one of my flag-waving pseudo-religious friends sent me his upteenth gooey sentimental "pray for our troops" emails and I responded, "I will pray for our troops to not obey unlawful orders to fight undeclared wars." Then I realized, this is "the key," that is, the moral high ground.
Every argument from the other side falls to the wayside when we point out that the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land; and those that betray the Constitution betray us and have no integrity. We don't need to be accepted by the GOP, the MSM or any other group that lacks integrity. Our job is to do nothing more than point out with facts how these groups lack integrity. This is what Dr. Paul does best, though he doesn't preach.
When those troops who contributed to Dr. Paul realize it takes more courage to refuse unlawful orders than to obey, many will do the right thing. Integrity will spread to law enforcement, the courts and, finally, back to our elected officials. At that moment, we'll finally deserve the kind of country many of us already believe we deserve and once believed we had.
Trust me, standing up to the military is a piece of cake ...
compared to fighting the tax thieves in the IRS and Fed. For the most part, the military plays by the rules. The Fed and IRS are exempt from the rules.
You'll wind up paying more, either in legal fees or in "penalties" for "taxes" you didn't owe in the first place, rewarding this vile system even more. If there is a "silver bullet," I haven't found it; and I live for the day when I do.
Call it revenge, retribution or vindications, but I live for the day I can inflict at least as much pain on the tax thieves as they have cost me. If there is a nonviolent solution, I haven't found it; and quite frankly, what deters me is I could never hurt them as much as they have hurt me without injuring innocent people (which I will not do).
I wonder what people here
I wonder what people here would think of this as it may be too taboo for even this group. But...as far as im concerned one of the biggest contributors to our foriegn policy debacle is the soldier. In other words, nobody is forcing these people to join. You can have all the policy in the world but if you dont have the actual tools, it doesnt matter.
In some ways I would blame the soldier more so than any politician. I don't pray for the troops nor do i care. Without troops we wouldn't have any of these problems. And most people enlist in the armed forces for two reasons: taking advantage of the opportunities, which is not a reason to join at all, or because they believe in the ideology, the policy. The latter i could care less about. THe former however uninformed is just as guilty as the politicians trying to take advantage of the soldiers.
To me, the act of enlisting for whatever reason is high on the list of stupidity and selfishness.
I respectfully disagree with your post
For one, there are any number of reasons why someone would join the armed forces and it will very greatly from one individual to another. I am a former Marine and can personally attest to this. Lumping the entire armed forces into 2 groups is just plain ignorant.
From this country's violent inception, there has always been a need for people to sacrifice their lives to defend the constitution (national DEFENSE not offense). Every soldier, Marine, sailor, and airmen swears an oath to do just that. Without these men and women who would willingly fight and die for YOUR freedoms, you might not enjoy the the ones you do. Stupid and selfish should not be adjectives used to describe such people.
Let's not forget the infancy of this movement. The words ideology and policy may mean something to everyone here but might not to some 18yr old kid looking for some direction who hasn't had his eyes opened yet. Don't assume that anyone else "gets" this stuff. Most don't.
I agree, Patrick. I am
I agree, Patrick.
I am currently in the Navy. I will have 10 years in the service when I get out in a year. One of the BIG contributers is because I WAS ignorant when I joined. Now I can no longer serve in the Military because of the many, many gross discrepancies there are in what "Should Be" and what "Is".
Those of you who say that the soldier should stand up and protect the Constitution should definately wake the "F" up. The game is rigged. If a soldier were to stand up against his superiours in the current climate, he would be in a heap of hurt. Bottom Line is, that the military IS losing a lot of members because many are disenfranchised and have become increasingly aware of how we are pawns. And along the same thought lines, why do you think militias are getting their second wind? Along with more recruits they are getting more training. Where are the recruits coming from, who's giving the training? Former/Retired military who are getting fed up with the system.
The way I look at it is that if they lose much of their military personnel it'll be that much harder to police the world.
As a non-military member who agrees with the above commenter (not patrick) have you stopped paying your taxes? If not, then you too are supporting the system. If you have, then it's equivalent to me getting out of the Navy. Government is derived from the consent of the governed, right? Well, my consent is out, only my contractual obligation remains.
But then again, why do you think that the military is pushing so hard to get everything "unmanned" or "automated". The Navy is certainly pushing for reduced manning in EVERYTHING, as is the Air Force and the Army. It's so that when the soldiers do leave/revolt the remaining "loyal" (read: sheep) who have grown up on video games can automated the military's equipment with only slight inconvenience.
Me being the above
Me being the above commenter, I haven't stopped filing (haven't owed yet). But your analogy is false. You decided on your own volition to put yourself into that situation with the military/government. I will not stop paying taxes because i do not want to go to jail. That's simple and logical. I'm not going to destroy myself. That's plain stupid. However, you chose to join for whatever wrong reason. I mean there isn't and hasn't been a reason to even have an armed forces for at least the past 20 years. Your consent is where the problem began.
And as far as me "supporting the system," that is somewhat inaccurate. I am not consenting to support it in belief. I am supporting it in function and forced to. I was not given the opportunity to consent or not consent. We were all born into it. You were not born into the military. You chose it. There's a difference. I am supporting the system because I am forced to so to protect my well being the best I can in a corrupt system. Yes, this is not a free country. Hasn't been in a long time, if ever.
No, the analogy holds true.
You VOLUNTEER to owe "income" taxes everytime you file a 1040 (or varient) and everytime you give your "employer" a TAXPAYER ID number. (actually everytime they file an earnings report on you, but it was you giving them the number that allows them to file it)
You are ELECTING to be treated as if the tax is really imposed on you.
Which it isn't unless of course you fit into one of the following groups:
Resident or Non-Resident alien earning domestic source income.
Foreign Corporation earning domestic source income.
U.S. Citizen living abroad earning foreign sourced income.
A withholding agent for one of the above three classes of persons.
Domestic source income is only earned in connection with government privilege or contractual business.
Subtitle A "income tax" has not, and cannot be, applied to the average American citizen living and working in one of the 50 States in a private capacity.
The Supreme court has so ruled that:
That the 16th amendment DOES NOT authorize a tax on a salary. { Evans v. Gore, 253 US 245 (1920) }
That the term "income" in ANY taxing statute of Congress must mean the same as it did to the people when the 16th amendment was passed. That meaning, the Court has unequivocally stated, can ONLY mean what it was defined as in the 1909 CORPORATE Tax Act. { Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921) & Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399, 414 (1913) }
I challenge anyone to produce a Supreme Court case saying that wages which YOU are paid in exchange for YOUR labor are within the meaning of "income" of the 16th Amendment, and thus taxable without apportionment, and actually ARE taxed by current laws. I also challenge anyone to produce such a case or any case drawing a logical equivalent conclusion, that does not have as part of the facts of the case a signed statement by the individual in question, that he is a TAXPAYER, and that the statement does not contain a TAXPAYER ID number associated with him. ALL such cases stating anything like "wages are taxable" ALL revolve around the fact of an "information" return being filed which essentially CLAIMS that the individual in question IS someone on whom the tax is imposed - even if it isn't. The government will NOT challenge your own self assessment of liability - only the amount of it.
The analogy holds - you keep VOLUNTEERING to be liable for a tax that is (most likely) not imposed on you. You are supporting the "system" and you have a choice not to.
Ahh ok. I see, so trying
Ahh ok.
I see, so trying to correct a wrong that I made as an ignorant teen is not sufficient, but your fear of going to jail is. Being born to the system makes it ok? By that logic, slavery should still be acceptable.
To give credit where due, yes many military members have joined for the wrong reasons and do perpetuate the "power" of the US where it aught not be. But please acknowledge that there are also a large group of us who are not blind to what's happening and are taking steps to remove our participation. Also, I don't know if you went to the Rally for the Republic last year (which I was fortunate enough to get leave to drive there for it), but Ron Paul touched upon the topic of the soldier who does what he is told without question after Amy Allen sang the song he requested ("Universal Soldier"), so it's not like you're way off base.
I'm not saying you have to go out and buy a "Support our troops" magnet or anything or give your local soldier a big hug. Heck, I don't even care that you believe that they are an inherent part of the problem (because unquestioning military is really just a group of thugs). What really fires me up about this topic is that you have summarily lumped all service members into the category of "sheep". Most are. A LOT are not. It's the ones who aren't that will be an asset when the time comes for not armed rebellion (perhaps necessary, but that's off topic), but for strength when standing in front of our oppressors.
Of course, I am assuming that you are not here to fire people up, but do want to have an intellectual discourse. (Please do not take this as a jab at you, only an acknowledgement that some people on the 'net like to stir the pot just for the sake of doing it).
I Salute you!
You are a brave man just by posting this and moving to leave this system. No one here or anywhere else can tell you (or me) where our fight is and how to fight it or that we are or have been sheep. This journey is unique and personal for each of us. We sit here in the KNOW and yet are we marching with signs in front of the RECRUITMENT OFFICES, reaching out to these young men and women with the truth. NO! These young people are victims, just as I was. A product of a system that was by design crafted to produce a nation of un-constitionally un-educated and compliant people. I will proabably get my virtual-ass kicked for using the word victim but I can't think of another word. It's hard for me to compare myself to a sheep, yes a sheep will go compliantly off to slaughter as it is hearded in with the others, so I get the picture and the similiarities. But a sheep doesn't have the God given ability to reason and think and question as we have been given those gifts. I was a product of a system that intended to dumb me down, and a product of a system that told my parents that they (the state) could do a better job of educating me, and my parents were products of designs before them aimed at my grandparents generation....
It's a horrible system engineered to produce what we have today. Few step outside that box and see. But as those few who do, their journey is theirs and not for anyone else to judge or criticize. I applaud and thank you for your service, it is that experience that brought you to this moment.
Best Wishes to you!
!!!Truth is treason in the EMPIRE OF LIES!!!
" Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of they day; but a series of oppresssions...pursued unalterably, through every change of ministers, too plainly proove delibrate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery..."
Tho
I'm a little confused. I'm
I'm a little confused. I'm not attacking you and your attempt to right wrongs. That's nice, though not sure what you can do except leave. Not sure what you mean by sufficient. And being in a powerless situation (i.e. paying taxes), doesn't mean I approve or accept it. And if you think we're not powerless in that situation, you're delusional. My first concern is my well being and forever will be. Only until other things are changed can resisting taxation be plausible. Nobody has ever succeeded in that endeavor and most who try are hurt immensely. It's stupid to do it.
As far as your angst about how I'm "lumping" soldiers together, I'm sorry that bothers you but by choosing to join is an act of being a "sheep." That you and some others have grown out of that is nice to hear. However, initially, to join is to be sheep.
And no, not trying to cause bickering and what not. Just interested to hear what people think and to express myself just the same. Am I passionate about certain areas, sure.
So, patrick78
why aren't they, the soldiers, I mean? Defending the Constitution, that is? They're participating in its violation, which in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan (and how many others?) makes soldiers that have killed murderers. I hate to say that, but it's true. It's horrible--for them and us!
It is horrible...for us all
Unfortunately the military is not a democracy. There is no soldier union to demand that their voices be heard. They have no recourse, without penalty of course. The changes need to take place here. Once you're there the ones that would suffer from you not doing your "job" would be the guys to your left and right. What a pickle, huh?
It's not about the military being a democracy.
(neither is this country - it is a Republic)
The question put forth is:
If a soldier takes an solemn OATH to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution - and he enters into the service ONLY if he freely takes that OATH, is he not OBLIGATED by his OATH to actually PRESERVE, PROTECT, and DEFEND the Constitution? (against ALL enemies - foreign AND domestic)
If the answer is yes, which it obviously should be, the question is then HOW does the solider uphold his oath? The answer should be in how the Constitution is threatened. In the case of a superior officer issuing an order in contravention to the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, then the procedure should be the same for any case where an unlawful order is issued. No soldier is bound to obey an unlawful order, and he enjoys no protection under any law for carrying it out.
If orders are issued to engage in making war absent a Congressional declaration of war, then any such orders are unlawful as they are in contravention of the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Any such superior officer issuing any order to carry out such war making should be handled as any other officer issuing an any other unlawful order. (because he is)
One can cry all they want about "circumstances" that make it seemingly impossible or uncomfortable to refuse an unlawful order, but that does not diminish ANY soldier's OBLIGATION to do so. Each soldier CHOOSES to take that oath. Realizing years later what that oath actually obligates them to do, and it not being easy to fulfill, is not an excuse or pass to not uphold their oath.
This, I believe is the weakest part of our governmental structure. There should be severe penalties for violating the oath of office. If there were teeth behind the oath, maybe we could avoid the problems we face now, or at least be able to clean the old ones up a bit.
Good post
I agree there should be severe penalties. The fact that the entire chain of command, up to the Commander in Chief, takes essentially the same oath just highlights your point even more. There has definitely been a lack of empathy toward the Constitution. We can only hope to continue to wake people up and see how far we've drifted. Unfortunately, there is more to the oath than just supporting and defending the Constitution. There is a nasty little AND in there.
"I, _____, 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
One problem with the oath itself is that there doesn't seem to be any major distinction, in the wording, between supporting and defending the Constitution and obeying the orders of the President. Here are some of the charges and penalties outlined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
§ 885. Art. 85. Desertion : time of war=Death or Courts Martial
§ 886. Art. 86. Absence without leave: CM
§ 887. Art. 87. Missing movement: CM
§ 890. Art. 90. Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer: time of war=Death or CM
§ 891. Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer: CM
§ 892. Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation: CM
§ 894. Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition: Death or CM
§ 898. Art. 98. Noncompliance with procedural rules: CM
§ 899. Art. 99. Misbehavior before the enemy: Death or CM
§ 913. Art. 113. Misbehavior of sentinel: time of war=Death or CM
§ 934. Art. 134. General article (Catch All): CM
There are any number of other offenses that you could be charged with. For these not to apply to a defendant they would have to prove in a courts martial hearing that the President of the United States was acting in contempt of the Constitution. That's a pretty tough sell. Granted, a necessary one.
It's not a very good position to be in.
Team ... Work ?
Do Not Give Yourself Up ...
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/75055#comment-805383
... To The Machine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8efNCOAUtc
There may be many reasons
There may be many reasons people decide to join but that is different from the reason to join. There is only one reason to to join the armed forces and it is the same as the reason to have an armed forces...that is, for self-defense. That's all. Now one's definition of that is where the disagreements come into play.
However, I believe, I think someone of the liberty first belief believes, nobody in the last 50 years has defended me or anyone in this country at all. In fact, that's probably not happened for 100 years, and maybe more than that. Not saying we shouldn't have been in WW2 or WW1 but that didn't have to do with defending. Those had to do with saving, which is good and decent. Anyway, whether you were in the armed forces or not is irrelevant. You are essentially saying the neocon philosophy. The armed forces protect this country. But that's a crock of shit. They are just puppets for a imperialistic agenda. Soldiers do nothing except unknowingly collude with a policy counter to its purpose of self-defense.
As far as the 18 year old you refer to, that is just another example of incorrect decisions. The armed forces does not exist to teach, grow, develop, help, give direction, etc. to anyone. It is a grim and brutal world designed to not serve the individual at all. The armed forces is, or supposed to be, designed for the individual to serve it.
Again I wholeheartedly disagree with you.
Let's start by saying that you can be sure there is no neocon philosophy being preached here. This country is a heck of a lot older than WW1 so just because you don't personally feel like you've felt the fruits of a strong national defense doesn't mean that you haven't. I'll tell you, I'm sure the above poster will agree, that it makes me sick to see the men and women in the armed forces being used as pawns to further the current and previous administrations' agendas. That's not a private's or sergeant's fault and to hold them in contempt is directing your vitriol at the wrong people. Your talking on policy and ideological levels that 99% of the members of the armed forces have no say in whatsoever.
Your entire last paragraph could not be further from the truth. The goal of the military is to develop people into productive INDIVIDUALS. A unit full of strong, smart, organized individuals working together and protecting each other is the foundation for success, be it military of civilian. (Sound a little bit like the RP R3volution?) There are a lot of jobs in the military that you get top notch education and training that directly correlate to civilian life. Not everyone in the military is a bullet sponge. It's up to the individual to strive to grow but trust me you can get out of it what you want. On top of it all, to give someone that comes from nothing the opportunity to go to college for free. (a cheap college anyway...well, maybe something online). If shit was running right in Washington you wouldn't even need to risk getting killed to get it.
I understand your point of view and I respect it. I don't agree with it but the fact we can have a rational debate about it is what makes this country great. Have a good night.
Man, I feel for you. I just
Man, I feel for you. You just don't understand the libertarian philosophy. The military is a government funded institution. If its being used for other purposes than what it is intended for, then that is government in excess and should be removed.
The military may today be structured the way you describe, as a teaching ground. However, that is not the point of a military. I said in my above post "supposed to be." I didn't presume the way a military should be operating is the way it is operating. A military is about defending something, not about growing people. I don't care if that's what it does today. It's simply not the point of it. That's just another example of its dysfunction. You want to learn, go get educated or go to school or whatever. And that the military gives a free education afterwards goes back to my original statement of why people join the military (i.e. the benefits), which is the wrong reason.
You're just wrong in what you're saying. You just don't realize it. What you're describing is wasteful government spending. That the education system in this country is completely fucked up and that people turn to the military to make up for that failure is another story.
Wrong?
I absolutely agree with you that it is government in excess but you keep vilifying the military. It's the government that needs to be removed or, more appropriately, changed. It's not the military that is wrong. Last time a checked the there was no military branch of government. The current military is more than a government funded institution, it is an example of what happens when you use an asset in the wrong manner. If you want to reduce the wasteful military spending there needs to be a government in place that will stop appropriating so much of our money into it. A government that abides by the constitution. Do you feel there should be no government at all or one that abides by the constitution? And if it's the latter what would be your idea of the perfect perfect gov't?
I are you saying I'm wrong in my opinions? The core belief of libertarian philosophy is that people are free to believe what they want and live their own lives without someone telling them they're wrong and trying to push their beliefs on them. You seem a little confused on the difference between libertarianism and liberalism.
So we seem to be passing
So we seem to be passing each other in argument. You're not hearing me and I'm not focusing on what you want to address. You have frustration to something (i.e. government). I have that frustration just as well. However, we get at an impasse when we focus on the military. I believe the very act of participating is just as bad as government corruption. Once you are in the military, you are stuck. I understand that. You should follow the rules to the extent that you will not destroy yourself. The problem is at the moment of deciding to join. You are willingly joining up with the problem, whether knowingly or unknowingly. I don't care about the government in this argument. It's moot. Yes, obviously the government should function accordingly. The issue here is that by joining up with the military you unavoidably help perpetuate the problem. Not sure why this is so difficult. Maybe you're just upset at your decision to join and don't like the idea that you made a mistake. Hence, you can't consider you and/or the military per se as the problem. But by joining you are providing the means to the government's end. If you can't understand that, not sure what else to say.
And what you describe as libertarianism is anarchy. LIberty doesn't mean anybody can do what they want without opposition or consequence. If you have a belief that you can kill people because you want to, you are wrong. And if you were to act, I would do everything I can to stop you and if you were to succeed, I would wish you to be oppressed until you were not a threat. Libertarianism is the philosophy of "you can do what you want until your fist hits my nose."
LIke I said...
I understand your argument completely I just don't agree with it. We are pointing the finger at different (yet the same) things. You're pointing it at men and women who join the military as the problem and I'm pointing it at the ones who are using the military improperly as the problem. Which, in your honest opinion, is the root of the problem? It seems as difficult for you to understand as you seem to think it is for me to understand. On the same note, my view on the military being what it is because of my choice to join is just as bias as yours with your choice to not join.
I know the difference between libertarianism and anarchy...thanks.
No you're missing it. I am
No you're missing it. I am pointing at the government just the same as you are. However, I'm ALSO pointing out that joining the military is ALSO a problem. That's all. You fighting with that additional aspect I'm pointing out. I'm not making it an either or thing. That's why we're passing each other. I don't have a problem including something else with the corruption of government as part of the problem, meaning joining the military.
I have a friend
Who is joining the Navy...Her reason....Work,,,There are no jobs in her area and she can not afford to move...I pray for her and those that are serving...I pray they stay/come back home safe...and help us take over.
Freedom is another way to God...A corrupt government is a straight way to hell.
I believe in Hope & Change..I Hope the government will Change
Spindale-Rutherford County-North Carolina
My mom who works for the government
is suggesting that I apply for a government job. I'm one of those FL realtors that's just barely getting by these days. Don't think I could stomach it though...
R3VOLution
The Dead Horse
As others have posted below, the oath reads..."lawful Government"...or "Commander in Chief". To re-open THAT can of worms...is Barry REALLY the CiC? Whether he was born in Hawaii or not is irrelevant. According to the Constitution, BOTH parents must be citizens. Barry's dad never even applied...so, the buck stops there; he is NOT ELIGIBLE to be President! So, I wonder if there has been any decention in the ranks as to following a Commander in Chief that really isn't.... Anyone?
------------------
BC
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
Alexis DeTocqueville (1805 - 1859)
------------------
BC
Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry
It's so interesting that you posted this
I got the same "gooey" email, I think, and I just can't respond to them--yeah, yeah forward this to support our troops. Whatever.
I do agree that yours is a good answer and I have used similar tacts with people. One former military attacked me personally when I asked if he would continue to fight and kill if he learned that the basis for his fighting was a lie and/or violated the Constitution. He indicated that he would, to which I replied that that would make him a murderer. And then I can't tell you what he said back. Yeah, support our troops, all right.
Over the weekend, in response to a family member's statement that at least there's a chance things will get better with the current guy in the White House (this followed his statement that this is "a country of laws" and "no one is above the law"), I pointed out that the current occupant of the White House has already proven his willingness to violate those laws by his support of the renewal of the USA PATRIOT ACT, FISA, the bailout, etc. How do we conclude that someone will uphold the law when that person has already shown he won't?
Answer: Family member changed the subject.
With "Americans" like this, who needs foreign enemies?
Good answer
I'll use it. "I'll pray for the troops to not obey unlawful orders to fight any undeclared wars."
Thanks for posting it.
I've faced the repercussions many times...
and it has cost me dearly. I once beat the U.S. Navy on a breach of contract suit. I haven't been so fortunate dealing with the IRS, as they are essentially excluded from our legal process. There are not enough Americans willing to take up arms, if necessary, to defend economic rights, and lone individuals don't have a prayer against an army of armed thugs and an ignorant, cowardly public. Between the IRS and the thieving bankers, I've been pretty well wiped out financially.
the enlistment oath is as
the enlistment oath is as follows:
"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."
articles 90, 91, and 92 of the UCMJ only make it a crime to disobey lawful orders. it's not a crime to disobey unlawful orders.
if a soldier believes he's following an unlawful order, he has a duty to refuse to carry out that order, cite the appropriate article as grounds, and take it up with a court-martial if he's so charged. the person issuing the order does have the burden of proving the order was lawful before a conviction can be handed down.
America: 3/5 police state, excluding indians not taxed.
"Hopkins is #1 in medicine, Wharton is #1 in business, and Yale is #1 in law. The only thing that leaves Harvard is #1 in useless bureaucrats!"
Has anyone in the military tested this approach successfully
with regard to our current wars? That could be interesting. I heard Adam Kokesh, ex military, is considering a run for Congress.
R3VOLution
Matthis Chiroux, Iraq Vet going to court in St Louis 21 April 09
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271001
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=71897212453&h=CB8d...
He is facing the court today on charges of misconduct. He refuses to go back to Iraq.
Update:
Text Message by Matthis after the hearing:
`Victory! General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions! resistance has a green light. I've even still got my GI Bill! Spread the Word! Peace! Matthis'