IVAW’s mixed message
The IVAW board has decided to take action against Carl Webb, but not how you might think. Webb has advocated for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan to sabotage equipment and hinder our efforts there, putting the troops in more danger. But the IVAW says that’s not against it’s rules. The Board has warned Webb against trying to drive IVAW membership away, instead. This is from a letter the Board sent to several members who complained about Webb;
The Board of Directors fully understands your concerns over the statements made by IVAW member Carl Webb. It is clear to us that his statements about “splintering” IVAW are in violation of the Code of Conduct (CoC). Therefore we have sent him an official email stating that he is in violation of the CoC and further violations will result in further action to include the termination of his membership in accordance with our policy on termination.
His statements on sabotage or his calls in support of the killing of American soldiers are not in violation of our CoC, as it now reads, because he has not made any threats to do so (if he has please provide us with these threats). The CoC reads: “Prohibited behaviors include, but are not limited to, the following:” “Conduct or threats endangering the life, safety, and/or health of others.” Therefore supporting or encouraging others to do things is not actually doing them or threatening to do them, even if it does turn off some service members/ IVAW members. We can not govern the organization merely by the intimidation of members threatening to quit.
If a resolution or policy outlawing statements encouraging sabotage or violence conducted by a third party were passed, by the membership or Board respectively, then the Board would be empowered to take action on this, at this point however the only way to remove a member is to have a majority vote of the Board. Any member may request that the Board votes on revoking Carl Webb’s membership (or any other members’), and we will debate it and put it to a vote, but be clear that we take removal of membership very seriously. To make this request simply send an email to Board@ivaw.org stating that you would like this vote and why.
According to present policy the membership may not vote to revoke another members membership so the “resolution” proposed will not go to the members for a vote. In addition to our being limited by the termination policy in conjunction with the CoC, the reason this will not go to a vote is because the policy guiding resolutions states that a resolution must “more clearly define IVAW’s position related to a specific cause” – a point which the proposal to remove Carl does not meet. The proposed resolution on nonviolence however will be on the ballot for a vote by the membership and will need a majority vote to pass.
We are attempting to deal with this situation and abide by our policy on termination (this can be found at the following link http://ivaw.org/members/documents#electionresults although you will need to be logged into the website to see it). We do not want to see the membership voting at every turn to revoke membership of anyone simply because we do not like the political views of said member. A vote on revoking Carl’s membership would set a president of a slippery slope.
It has also been suggested that power to revoke membership of an individual be decentralized to the local level but that would require a bylaw amendment and ratification by the members. We suggest that any member wishing to make this decentralization happen draft a bylaw amendment, bring it to the convention, and be ready to submit it at the next opportunity to do so (in accordance with section 20.2 of the bylaws).
We know that you were hoping for more decisive action but we must give members all opportunities to comply with our CoC before termination of membership. Our hope is that no member will resign form IVAW because they disagree with any other member. A much more effective way to deal with these problems is to get out and organize to ensure that IVAW is actually doing not mailing in speeches about what we want to do or should be doing.
In solidarity
Board of Directors
Iraq Veterans Against the WarGeoff [Stolen Valor] Millard
Iraq Veterans Against the War
National Board Of Directors
Yeah, see they’re flexible on getting troops killed or injured in theater, but don’t you dare drive the membership off. Webb was nice enough to copy his letter of reprimand to our comments.
This is just a transparent attempt to mollify the membership leading up to the convention in Silver Spring, MD so the ISO members don’t get tossed out on their collective ass. Well, the truth is; the ISO is what has divided the IVAW because they’re more interested in being a wing of the anti-war organizations. They’re happier being window dressing in the front of an ANSWER protest than they are being a veterans organization.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Phony soldiers, Usual Suspects
“We can not govern the organization merely by the intimidation of members threatening to quit.”
You ain’t gonna have much of an organization if these members are threatening to quit because you are doing things that DON’T represent them such as allowing Karl Marx (non-vet,no time in theater) Webb to advocate via the organization for the killing their comrades…
Screeching about peace & being pawns of the ISO, an organization that thinks Che was groovy, despite his job of shooting “enemies of the revolution” in the skull & Vlad mass murdering & imperialist Lenin was all that & a bag of chips seems a tad bit hypocritical & ironic, too.
I hope someone like AS can ecplain to me in what manner a group could consider itself a “Veterans Organization” that cares about the troops, while allowing any number of members to advocate the intentional harming of those they profess to “care” about?
That’s not what I would call a Veterans Organization, more of a terrorist, anti-troop group.
That’s just my take on it.
Not just your take, brother. These clowns have gone so far around the bend you can’t even see it from where they are anymore.
I think Millard is trying the best he can to wade through the mess by saying that Webb’s calls for sabotage aren’t sufficient to warrant his removal because he has only asked for others to commit those acts rather than threatening to engage in them himself. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m fairly certain that asking other people to do illegal shit on your behalf makes you an accessory. Regardless of IVAW’s bylaws, what Webb is doing may be illegal.
Millard should get in touch with those lawyers Matthis talks about in his resume and get some clarification.
Advice from Marjorie Cohn? The woman who has never done any of her clients any good? I’d sooner ask a hobo for legal advice.
I don’t blame Geoff for this too much. With the current makeup of the board, I’m pretty sure that he was simply the mouthpiece who framed the argument rather than the guy who voted it into place. I am interested to see what the board will look like in a few weeks.
Selena, you are now attached to an organization that doesn’t give a shit what there membership thinks. You can wait till this new Board, but in the meantime you belong to an organization that wants you dead. Yeah, they may be extreme but look Carl has called for violence against you, and every soldier, Marine, Airmen, Naval personel through sabatoge.
Yes, IVAW’s official stance is that they do support the killing of American troops, and unfortunately Selena you now do to.
Trust me, I understand your position-but I’m not going to quit just because certain Board members staged a political coup on the Board of Directors. Once the membership realized what was going on, they began getting restless, which is why Mejia is not running again this year, to avoid the humiliation of being voted out by an overwhelming margin. Which is why we have a resolution on the table condemning shit like that.
You can laugh at me in two weeks if the convention turns out to go completely bust, but until then, I’m going to hope.
I’m not sure if the blog ate my post or Jonn’s anti-spam software, so I’m going to wait a few before reposting just in case it reappears.
Jonn wrote: I didn’t see anything in the spam folder – unless your name is “Jenny McCarthy’s Hairstyles”.
AS it is not that we do not want to see this work. It is that after all that has happend within the IVAW that the new guys will have to do a lot to turn the image and overall goals around.
Oldtrooper and Sparky, I see that AS just chose to ignore your comments. I agree, seems like IVAW is just a terrorist, anti-troop bunch who’d like to see Americans killed, just because.
Spot on UpNorth, again, for the gajillionth time, when a good chunk of the leadership for IVAW are ga-ga for mass murderers like Che & Lenin, I don’t think it bodes well for the rest of the organization….
Oh, and for National Board Of Directors bubba
Geoff [Stolen Valor] Millard to sport an unearned CIB is a tad bit gauling… Any Soldier with a functioning brain housing group knows that CIBs go to specific 11 and 18 series Soldiers for having bang-bang made at them while performing Infantry or SF missions.
Seems you can tell a lot about people/organizations by who they idolize and who they don’t condemn.
Re: #2 from OldTrooper
Noted.
A friend of mine who is a retired law enforcement officer checked and said there are no arrest warrants for desertion or any other crime on Webb in the national computer. He said he has seen desertion warrants in the computer before and that unless DOD has changed their policies in the last 18 months, Webb is not a deserter.
So if Webb is not a deserter, then he also is not eligible for membership in IVAW, since his whole membership is based on his claim that he deserted from the Texas National Guard, which he claims to have joined three weeks before 9/11 and deserted from after receiving orders for Iraq.
Seems to me that Carl Kenneth Webb needs to either prove he’s a deserter, or get the hell out of IVAW.
I don’t want AS to misconstrue my opinion, because I do hold her in the same regard that I hold all honorable Vets and active duty personnel. That she’s part of an organization that allows someone to call for her, as well as all military, maiming or murder is beyond me.
OldTrooper:
The organization on the whole doesn’t call for it. It’s just this one guy who really frustrates the hell out of me, and nothing can be done about it with the current board makeup. I am waiting two weeks until something can be done. There’s stuff up for vote about this all. I’m not ignoring you, I’m just really at the stage where I’m trying to keep my temper about this stuff, because one or two people are trying to bring down an entire organization by smearing the hell out of us. Some people did a political coup on our Board and everything’s been screwed up since, but I’m looking to the end time and we /will/ have a statement, or I /will/ get the hell out.
Selena, I think OldTrooper understands that, actually. Look at his sentence again: “…an organization that allows someone to call for her, as well as all military, maiming or murder is beyond me.” It is somewhat grammatically garbled, but the undestanding is there.
The orgnization may not be calling for sabotage and murder, but it is allowing Webb to call for this without kicking him out and denouncing his words. In my opinion, that should be grounds for removing everyone from the board who made that decision because they have just proved themselves to be unworthy of the trust placed in them and they don’t know what they’re doing. If they want to protect and support an individual who makes that kind of call, they need to do it elsewhere, not under the name of a 501(c)(c) tax exempt organization. This is getting to be so outrageous, it is fucking hilarious. That’s just my opinion, speaking as an outsider. I’m not even a VFP member anymore.
I think everything that you’re doing is exactly right, Selena. If things don’t change, it is most likely going to bring scrutiny and investigation by the FBI and Homeland Security, if it hasn’t already. Much of what those jokers do in terms of “homeland security” is, IMO, worthless, senseless, and a waste of taxpayer money. But I will not fault federal agents for the monitoring and investigation of a tax-exempt domestic organization that protects the membership of an individual who calls for the death of US soldiers.
It is a pretty fair guess that the 501(c)(3) tax exempt status will be short-lived. It will basically be the end of IVAW as any sort of legitimate organization at all. So those who are still in the organization and doing nothing are simply contributing to its demise by their silence and inaction.
I can’t say as that I particularly care. The whole antiwar movement is run by Communists and socialists anyway and there is nothing that can change that. It’s a pity, but that’s the way it is.
I would say it is a safe bet the IVAW is already under close scrutiny and the election of a professed “felt like” rapist to your board should just about finish things off. Those of you with genuine conviction while serving or having served honorably to the best of your ability need to start over. Healthy debate is good for these United States of America. The IVAW is a lost cause to this end.
Debbie: You think that’s garbled; it’s a good thing you can’t read my mind, LOL!
AS: I like your approach to this and maybe you can get some people in the leadership that will move the hyperbole driven types to the fringe where they belong. Unfortunately, with several of the candidates, I’m thinking that there is a good chance that the move closer to a radical socialist/communist organization is in your groups future.
Or you could start your own group. I mean if you can deal with this type of stuff, running your own group should be within reach. Also with the number of people who left, I am sure you could get members.
Post #21 was the Zen of Sporkmaster, Army Sergeant take note of his wisdom.
Re. #21 from Sporkmaster, actually, on Facebook, Jeff Peskoff (he is here somewhere, ex-IVAW) started a Facebook group called Charlatans Against the War. I’m proud to say, this was my idea, actually. 🙂 Last time I checked, we had four members, which is Jeff, me, Jonn, and one other guy. Why don’t you guys get on Facebook and join with us? It would be so fun! 🙂
You, know making a face book account is one thing I never followed up on. I mean I hardly use my myspace account.
Well, I’ve never really used MySpace, except to occasionally look in horror at my youngest daughter’s MySpace page, LOL, but I have the sense that Facebook is a better social networking tool. I think it complements blogs such as this very nicely. If people have something to talk about with each in cyberspace, it is a useful way for making it happen.
I guess that I will have to give it a try.
Also on this topic I read the policy for a Army bloging website. One line said;
•We do not allow comments that suggest or encourage illegal activity.
http://www.armystrongstories.com/privacy/#comments
So I guess it is too much for the IVAW to have somthing like that.
Well, in my opinion, what they should have should be something along the lines of requiring each member to sign a statement stating that they do not use or advocate the use of force or violence in any of their antiwar activities. I wouldn’t suggest going so far as to include all illegal activity in that because some of the peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience that some activists practice, and get arrested for, is simply a time-honored tool of expressing dissent and attempting to provoke change. America has a long and venerable history of dissent and civil disobedience, going back at least as far as Henry David Thoreau, who wrote the book on it. That kind of activity, while illegal, is a totally separate matter from violent actions, or the support and encouragement of violent actions, particularly against our own troops.
to debbie clark–
id be interested in passing along the FB message to you LOE friend, that webb sent me clearly saying he …
to AS–
I AGREE GEOFF, is only the speaking point, on a panel of members.
to UPnorth–
the ivaw members i knew most had 2nd thoughts about how they were shall i say used for messaging incl myself.
to Jonn–
i want to email u about a story you posted on the ft carlson story.. i wasnt clear on the guy who was mentioned vs the story u linked (u can email offthread about it)
to matthis your still a POS
Winter Soldier,
Was that an encrypted message or what? I can’t make heads or tails out of it. You have a message from Webb you want to send me? Well send it to me then. I can’t keep track of who you all are though. Are you and I friends on FB? If not, please friend me at http://www.facebook.com/people/Debbie-Clark/664123997
This makes me wish there was a lawyer on the BOD so there wouldn’t be people pretending they know something about legalese.
The thing that is really dumb about this statement is that is seems to be built on the premise that it is Webb’s “political views” that are being scrutinized when in fact it is about statements he made that have nothing to do with politics or views. He and others may claim politics as a cover, one that some how works to protect his statements. These kind of statements have been espoused by an individual, not a political canon.
How STUPID is it that IVAW says you have to submit a resolution to hold members accountable. It’s a good thing he isn’t on teh board or he might have actually been punished like AS was.
Millard should have refused to write this crap or at least do some research to know that speech can be construed as conduct and that certain speech puts IVAW in jeopardy.
It is also good to know that voting to remove Webb will set a president. I thought we already elected one.
Exactly what speech puts IVAW in jeopardy? You mean speech that points out the hypocrisy of preaching pacifism to Arabs while at the same time supporting US troops that participate in war?
The crazy lunatic speech that you spout. Dude, if I could duct tape your mouth shut and you to a wall, I would. And that’s not a threat, because I don’t have the ability to do it.
Here, here’s some stuff not breaking the code of conduct in the same way that your crap is.
I support anyone duct taping Carl Webb’s mouth shut and fingers together and him to a wall in Sadr City. It’s not a threat, you see, because I’m just /supporting/ people who might want to do it!
So the crazy lunatic speech that puts IVAW in jeopardy is that speech which points out the hypocrisy of preaching pacifism to Arabs while at the same time supporting US troops that participate in war.
No, it is the one that advocates sabotaging US equipment, putting in Soldiers lives in danger because of it. The same Soldiers that the IVAW claim to be working to protect and advocate for.