Southern Poverty Law Center urges Congress to investigate extremists in the military

How Can I Phrase This?

A political litmus test for service in the Armed Forces makes me uncomfortable.  I don't know that absent some evidence of actual wrongdoing, it is any more appropriate for the US to inquire into a soldier's poltical beliefs than it is appropriate to question their sexual orientation.  These soldiers may hold political beliefs I find repugnant, but this smacks of a witch hunt of sorts that can only be justified by some connection between the beliefs and a violation of military policy.  Otherwise, I woudl say that they have as much right to serve in the military as anyone, including openly gay and lesbian soldeirs (someday).  Taking an alternative position seems to smack of hypocrisy on our part.  

---

by: salemlawyer @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:51:02 AM CDT

That misses the point

By directive, "Military personnel, duty bound to uphold the Constitution, must reject participation in [supremacist] organizations... [the] system of rank and command, the requirements of trust and cohesiveness among service members, and the discipline essential to military units demand that service personnel reject the goals of such group."


"Neither Lifestyle nor Agenda"

http://tips-q.com

---

by: davidhart @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 13:13:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I disagree

Having served in the military for 11 years I disagree with your position.  The military has always done extensive background checks on military recruits. Before they accept you into the military they have gleaned through every aspect of your entire life.  They already are on a witch hunt to find anything that disqualifies you as a recruit.

I think you missed the point.  The military has lowered their standards to fill the ranks because there aren't enough people who want to join the military.

- Temporary immigrants are now allowed to serve in exchange for an excellerated path to citizenship.

-If an applicant admits to a criminal offense or conviction (i.e. sexual assault, robbery, assault, etc.), recruiters can request a criminal history waiver.

-The military has historically not allowed individuals without a high school diploma but now they will provided they get a GED before basic training.

By lowering their standards

neo-Nazis, skinheads and gangbangers

slip through the cracks while upstanding soldiers like Dan Choi are kicked out the door.  

It has nothing to do with "political litmus" it has to do with lowering standards to allow recruits they wouldn't have enlisted in the past while booting out very well educated, criminal history free, and honorable gay soldiers.

---

by: Donna @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 13:50:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You can neither phrase it, nor excuse it, nor explain it away as "free thought"

These are not your garden-variety racists who crush beer cans with their foreheads whilst muttering about "them uppity n******." These are proudly affirming Neo-Nazis who belong to a separatist movement committed to the overthrow of the democratically-elected United States government and the destruction of the Constitution. These are terrorists who have entered military service for the express purpose of getting combat arms and explosives training to prepare themselves for the next civil war, which they fully intend to start themselves.

When an individual enters the military, two very important things happen. One, you fill out your initial entry paperwork. Two of the questions on that paperwork are (or at least, used to be) "Have you ever advocated the violent overthrow of the United States government? Are you now or have you ever been a member of an organization that adovcates the violent overthrow of the United States government?" The reason that question is asked is because someone who advocates the violent overthrow of the democratically-elected United States government cannot be trusted to follow orders from that government. They are unfit for service.

The second thing that happens is that an enlistee takes an oath that begins, "I, [name], do solemnly swear/affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same". A person who is dedicated to the destruction of the Constitution cannot swear an oath to uphold it.

The fact of the matter is these people are not fit to serve because they cannot be trusted to support and defend the Constitution, or to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them, up to and including the Commander-in-Chief, when they affirm the goals of a movement intended to destroy those very things.

Hi, my name is Keori, and I'm a veteran.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 13:18:54 PM CDT

One of the great moments in film

occurs in Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, when the drill sergeant played by Lee Ermey tells his recruits gleefully about the domestic terrorists who were trained by the USMC, including marksmen Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Arguing that the US government is obligated to let people who want to destroy our society and our political system (corrupt as it is) enlist in the armed forces, and train them to carry out their nefarious  plots makes no conceivable sense.  No government should be obligated to fund its own destruction.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 13:36:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

weapons training

not only extremists, but also gang members will join the military to get the best weapons training. they serve their four years, and are often exemplary troops. then they get out and apply their training to other uses.

---

by: mixxie @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 13:59:33 PM CDT

Ok I'll Bite

Having read your posts, and understanding their point, I would ask, where does the review of a soldier's political philosophies begin and end?  Sure, its easy to exclude the neo-nazi, no one is going to feel bad about that.  But what about the socialist?  Who makes this decision?  What are the standards that govern this decision?  My point is that "tough cases make bad law."  We ask them to fight for free speech and then deny them the right at the same time.  I believe its a slippery slope when you go down this path, and while its the neo-nazi today, perhaps its the progressive tomorrow.

These are difficult issues, and they require a very clear set of regulations that provide the soldier with ample due process to challenge the decisions.  I don't want to defend these morons, but by the same token, are we to decide that their presence will impact "unit cohesion."  We don't want to turn the very agruments used to keep gay and lesbian soldiers out on another group, just because we disagree with them.

There are plenty of neo-nazis in the military, they just happened to have registered as republicans, because its a very big tent, you see.  Where do you draw the line?  I don't know, that's why I am asking.

---

by: salemlawyer @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 14:22:53 PM CDT

This seems so simple to me

It has nothing to do with free speech. Troops give up the right to free speech when they put on the uniform. Military regulations prohibit troops from exercising their civilian right to free speech in the interests of preventing insubordination within the ranks. This applies to speech denigrating the chain of command, ethnic or religious minorities, or inciting mutiny. Troops have no right to free speech. Did you know that?

It has nothing to do with philosphy. Can a socialist honestly uphold the Constitution and follow orders? S/he can if s/he has not undertaken a mission to train for the violent overthrow of the government. Can a Republican? Can a Democrat? Can a Quaker? Can a gay person? Can a Sikh? Can a Green? Of course! Can a separatist? No. A separatist's ultimate goal is the destruction of the democratically-elected U.S. government and the Constitution. There is no comparison here, and the slippery slope doesn't exist. You seem to be conflating racism with separatism. The two are not mutually exclusive, but one does not automatically equal the other. Not all racists are separatists, but all separatist groups espouse a racist philosophy. Only one group has vowed the destruction of the Constitution, and THAT is the sticking point.

This has nothing to do with free speech (which doesn't exist in the military) or philosophy (which is irrelevant to a fire team) and it has everything to do with a person's oath to uphold the Constitution and obey lawful orders. Military serivce, which requires allegiance to the Constitution and obedience to the CINC, is in diametric opposition to separatist ideology.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 15:02:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

indeed - a question of allegiance, not philosophy

An inability to comply with one's oath of office is, or should be, a big disqualifier going in. And once in, a racism manifest enough to interfere with unit cohesion is a disqualifier. A felony record because of some expression of that separatism or racism, which means damage to property or persons, should have been a disqualifier.

Incidentally, I found (by way of Sullivan's site) that this month's Soldier Magazine (UK) has a "pride" issue: feature interviews with a male member of the Household Cavalry and with a two-female military family. No doubts about their qualifications, or the incredulity with which they'd see our dilemma.

http://www.soldiermagazine.co.uk/

---

by: coram nobis @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 15:43:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oath of Enlistment

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.

I think that someone who has been a member of a separatist group can still serve as long as they cut all ties with that group and do not participate in its activities while serving.

The SPLC has given examples of service members who are still participating in groups that advocate the violent overthrow of our goverment and/or do not support the Constitution of the United States. This is a violation of their Oath of Enlistment.

While we can't control how people think, we can enforce behaviors.

When I lived in Monterey, many military folks who lived in the area would let us know that they support LGBT rights. They just can't participate in our political demonstrations -- even out of uniform. This is because they would be protesting against our government.

I don't know why participating in a neo-Nazi website or attending meetings of these groups is not considered to be the same kind of violation.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 16:03:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Military in Monterey

is among the best and brightest, since the closing of Fort Ord, and the military consists of the students at DLI.  I weas at DLI in '77, and had a date take me to Monterey After Dark.(Not really a date, but the roommate of a guy I was dating)  But the MI types and more intelligent people who could get into DLI were less homophobic.

---

by: PSzymeczek @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 20:09:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I just got this e-mail from SPLC

We have uncovered new evidence that racial extremists are infiltrating the U.S. military and have asked Congress today to launch an immediate investigation to ensure that our armed forces are not inadvertently training future domestic terrorists.

In recent months, our investigators have found dozens of personal profiles of individuals listing "military" as their occupation on a neo-Nazi, Facebook-type website. One person, apparently serving in Afghanistan, lists The Turner Diaries as his favorite book. That's the book by neo-Nazi leader William Pierce that served as the blueprint for the Oklahoma City bombing by Gulf War veteran Timothy McVeigh.

We've been warning the Pentagon about the danger of extremists in the military for more than two decades. In 2008, the FBI issued a report indicating that the problem may have worsened. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has not taken forceful action.

Indeed, the Pentagon appears to consider homosexuals more of a threat to the good order of the military than neo-Nazis who reject our Constitution's most cherished principles. While the military has discharged more than 12,500 service members because of their alleged homosexuality since 1994, it has refused to adopt a true "zero tolerance" policy when it comes to extremists in the military.

The overwhelming majority of our courageous men and women in uniform reject extremism and are dedicated to our nation's highest ideals. We owe it to them - and to the American public - to ensure that the ranks are as free of extremists as possible.

Please stand with us on this crucial issue and contact your congresspersons. We recommend sending a personal letter or calling the offices of your U.S. Senator or Representative.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 14:58:08 PM CDT

Maybelle,

SPLC has been sounding the alarm on this for at least 5 years.

---

by: PSzymeczek @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 20:10:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The letter says for over 20

That's why I posted it. I should have bolded that sentence.

We've been warning the Pentagon about the danger of extremists in the military for more than two decades.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sat Jul 11, 2009 at 20:16:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]