Honest question for IVAW members
Let me start by saying if you just want to call the IVAW guys traitors etc, please do so on the other link. That said though….
I have come to the conclusion that no longer can “IVAW member” and “honorable.” Co-exist. Which is not to say I find all of you to be traitors, but I can’t justify in my mind inclusion in a group which most recently elected Matthis Chiroux to your board, and which voted as a body that activities like that of Webb should be protected.
So, convince me otherwise. How can you tell me that IVAW cares about troops when they failed to elect to the board folks who honestly wanted to help them, while simultaneously tacitly supporting calls for those troops to be attacked, and their equipment sabotagued. Now, I have always believe that IVAW should be listed as a subversive organization, something I have said on several occasions, and I will likely be drafting up a document that encourages the DoJ to look into just such a thing, complete with the proof about Webb’s calls for actions etc.
So tell me, I know some of you members consider yourself to be honorable, how do you reconcile this self-evaluation with belonging to a group which would take such public positions?
Category: Politics
AS
This group is really a lost cause, I get that our feelings about Iraq differ but I think to say that this is well beyond that.
CHirroux is all about the me, myself and I, mentality…
Hey TSO…I don’t know what you do outside of studying…but I heard about a case of a soldier not getting the care he needs…can you point me in the right direction? He’s been injured, TBI, feet blown off, and does not appear to be cutting through the red tape…
DefendUSA: Where does this trooper live? TSO is an excellent source of such information. If you want, you can have TSO give you my email addresses and I’ll see what I can do from my end. Maybe a joint operation with TSO?
Good idea with the DoJ stuff.
I guess they could make the claim that since it is an organization that is based upon a “bottom up” instead of a “top down” philosophy, that there are still members of the group who do help veterans on a smaller level and that the “leadership” of IVAW does not speak for every member. I find this argument to be total bullshit as their “leadership” always seems to highlight the buddy fuckers, socialists, and radicals instead of using some very caring and bright people as the face of their organization. Unfortunately, those IVAW members who generally care about helping their fellow brothers and sisters are overshadowed by ass clowns.
As to respecting indiviudal members: not everyone in a country…um…I mean organization…necessarily approves of who that body elects, given the unique vicissitudes of Democracy and all that. That said, and the whole business of not wanting to belong to a club that would accept me as a member, etc…you can always leave if you find the company you keep becoming morally backrupt.
Just saying…
How many conservatives do you think are in the anti-war movement?
Webb, go away.
DefendUSA, I sent you an email. Need a phone number ASAP so I can get my people moving.
Point One: The bottom up defense was used extensively by NAZI Party members after the war. Point Two: Being “conservative” is a philosophy, not an organization. Organizations tend to adopt philosophies and accept/refute ones thrust upon it. Point Three: The IVAW has a stated philosophy in its original charter but has also had a subversive philosophy thrust upon it. The IVAW chose to recognize this as a point of fact by accepting a measure refuting that philosophy be put to a vote. That vote failed to carry thus accepting a subversive philosophy into the IVAW charter. To Conclude: The IVAW has become a defacto subversive organization. Membership from this point forward can no longer benefit from the bottom up defense.
Robert, very concise and spot-on analysis on IVAW. Thanks for posting it.
I think mostly because while I am not confirming or denying your vote totals, the plain fact is that most people didn’t vote, some weren’t aware of the vote, and others thought it would pass so easily that they wouldn’t need to vote.
I am still very, very unhappy about the resolution not passing, and no, I haven’t decided yet how I’m going to be proceeding. This isn’t me defending the failure of the resolution, because I’m not happy about it.
As for who got elected to the board and who didn’t…for various reasons, I did not appear in person at the IVAW convention. Neither did Agosto. People who don’t show up in person generally get low vote totals, especially when a lot of those voting are new members who may not know the score.
There are a lot of honorable people in IVAW and there are honorable people who have felt they’ve had to leave IVAW because of a few jerks. I respect both kinds.
I just contacted the IRS and informed them that IVAW (a tax-exempt 501c3 org.) is conducting illegal activities by being complicit when it’s members calling for Active Duty Troops to sabotage military equipment while in the theater of operations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The operator that I spoke with was disgusted (of course) and told me exactly what to do.
1. Get all my evidence together.
2. Either write it up in a Word Document or download form 13909 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf
3. Send it to the IRS by either fax, email or snail mail.
IRS-EO Classification
MC 4910 DAL
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX. 75242
FAX # 214-413-5415
Email: eoclass@irs.gov
Please, Please…everyone help…Our troops need your help NOW!!
Just because one is a member of an organization does not mean that one agrees with every position the organization takes. Does the political party you’re associated with always do what you truly want them to? Probably not. An individual should be judged by their actions, not by their affiliation – the latter is blatant prejudice. I’ll leave IVAW if I feel that the negatives outweigh the positives.
I served 9 years in the military. I didn’t request or receive any sort of bonus when I left Active Duty to go into the Reserves. I volunteered to go to Iraq. And most importantly, I feel like I always put the defense of the Constitution and the needs of my Soldiers ahead of my own interests.
I don’t agree with the war and openly express that – does that make me a piece of shit? You’re entitled to your own opinion in answering the question, but think about it.
Since I got out, I’ve helped, and will continue to help, veterans on every opportunity I get, regardless of whether or not they agree with the war[s]. I’m sure we all agree that’s one of the most important things that a veteran can do for his or her brethren.
Good thing you got out.
Now that you are out of the closet…………
Jesse, Your service for us all stands above all other issues and distinguishes you as citizen of superior esteem before which I am truly humbled.
No major political party in The Untied States of America has as part of its charter acceptance of seditious activity (although there is a lot of unjust finger pointing in all directions) towards the state or the troops that defend it. Unfortunately the IVAW by virtue of proposing a measure calling for a vote to refute encouraging such activity by IVAW members and that vote having not carried is now an organization that is condoning sedition by default. Most respectfully, your argument would have merit had the IVAW not introduced a measure to resolve the point. Having done so the IVAW has taken an official, formal stand, that being “The IVAW has voted not to refute calls for sedition by its members nor censure such members that encourage it”. The IVAW voted itself out of wiggle room.
Make no mistake you earned the right to oppose the war the moment you were born. Peaceable protest is your right, sedition and affiliation with seditious organizations is not.
Peaceable protest is your right, sedition and affiliation with seditious organizations is not.
Priceless.
Robert,
Not your fault about your son.
Mr. Hamilton, have you never heard the old saying that one is judged by the company he keeps?
Or, lay down with dogs, get up with fleas?
Robert – I respect and understand what you said, and if IVAW explicitly encourages, commits, or condones specific acts of unprovoked violence against uniformed personnel, I’ll cease my affiliation with the organization. Not that I believe it is currently justified, but we shouldn’t forget that “sedition” is a right of the people under certain circumstances, as outlined in a document that may sound familiar to some: “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” And let’s remember what Thomas Jefferson said about Shay’s Rebellion: “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty… And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right… Read more »
usnretwife – I’ve heard that before, but don’t pay it too much attention. If I chose to judge someone, it would be by their merits, and not by the merits of their acqaintences.
Jesse, that is one really stupid position to take. By not repudiating violence, IVAW has tacitly supported such activity. Should someone even more stupid than Carl Webb finally listen to his encouragements and commit an act of sabotage, the entire organization will be culpable in that crime. If such an event were to come to pass, and I hope it does not, you will have blood on your hands.
You’ve got to be out of your fucking mind, Jesse, to cite the preamble to the Declaration of Independence as justification for what IVAW is currently advocating. People are, rightfully, captured by the words of that preamble, but they should not forget the list that follows the words, “…let these facts be submitted to a candid world.”
There is a list of usurpations and transgressions, often ignored, that are cited as justification for the seditious acts of our founders. One of the primary complaints is that of representation. “Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” In our republic, our petitions may not be answered to our satisfaction, but they are heard by our duly elected representatives, and they are decided upon after those representatives consider the voices of every other citizen. Say what you like about the influence of lobbyists or corporations, but your scenario is not analogous.
Simply because a small minority of people in this country cannot achieve their political goals through the free dialogue and debate guaranteed in this republic, that does not give them the right to resort to violence. You have the means to peacefully petition your government for redress of your grievances. You have the means to sway public opinion. You have the means to influence our government to execute the policy that you wish to see enacted. That is the key difference between this and the Revolution. Our three branches of the federal government aren’t filled with tyrants on the level of King George. They’re rational people who realize you’re in the minority, and that you need to bring more citizens to your point of view before they can start advocating your positions.
So fuck off with your kindergarden analogies. I’m regretting defending you in the Army Experience Center discussion. You’re turning out to be quite the retard.
CRassai – I knew I was playing with fire with that one – and you’re right, it was probably a stupid thing to say. To be honest, I wanted to play devil’s advocate and see how people would respond. You responded intelligently. I didn’t mean to draw parallels between anything currently happening and the Revolution (I said that I did not believe anything like that was justified). I saw the word sedition and thought of Jefferson’s quote.
to both extremes.
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thy say to thy brother, “Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?” Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
The Sedition act of 1918 was repealed due to concerns that a Democratic president had used it during a time of war to suppress free speach. Article 3 of our constitution essentially requires an “act” and two witnesses to it. However the Smith Act of 1940 (18 USC, Section 2385) is very real with real life consequences. Nearly all applications involving any government benefit or opportunity asks (paraphrasing) “Have you ever advocated the violent overthrow of our government or associated with an organization that advocates …”. Legalize aside at this point every single IVAW member that does not hastily repudiate their membership must answer “YES”. That has real world consequences. IVAW members, peaceably protest the war; that is your right, but your present venue, IVAW, is an organization that subtely crossed a line (the leadership brought it up, voted on it and a recognized quorum of the membership voted it down) that unless undone immediately (not at the next convenient opportunity), indelibly affects each and every one of you for the rest of your lives.
The organization does not advocate the violent overthrow of the US. That’s a pretty long stretch, Robert. I may not be happy about the resolution not passing, but that’s a little bit of a crazy stretch.
I like Hamilton and Army Sergeant. That is why I cant understand why they are even IVAW members. At the same time I feel that hold membership in IVAW takes a tremendous amount of self-loathing and a completely misguided sense of self-purpose. I’ve always been amazed at the ability of IVAW members to always volunteer to be on the absolute bottom rung of the political ladder.
I like Hamilton and Army Sergeant. That is why I cant understand why they are even IVAW members. At the same time I feel that to hold membership in IVAW takes a tremendous amount of self-loathing and a completely misguided sense of self-purpose. I’ve always been amazed at the ability of IVAW members to always volunteer to be on the absolute bottom rung of the political ladder.
Yeah, I know, but The Smith Act (18 USC, Section 2385) is pretty long winded and I was not going to write it all out. Basically Sections 2381 through 2390 cover the issue. Section 2387 tends to be applied to mutiny, insubordination or encouraging it. Section 2385 tends to come into play when equipment related to an ongoing conflict is intentionally destroyed. Sabotaging a box of ammo may not seem the same as sabotaging an aircraft carrier, but before the law it is. It’s like you folks are needlessly tugging on the cheese in the mousetrap. You all get the point.
“It’s like you folks are needlessly tugging on the cheese in the mousetrap”. Great point, Robert. That pretty much describes them.
Webb actually tried to get another member of IVAW to commit acts of sabotage in Iraq. IVAW then failed to pass a resolution prohibiting such activity. Those are the facts. In light of what the elder Chiroux has shared, it is undeniable that they are culpable in acts of sedition. Hiding behind the veneer of an hypothetical ethics experiment is pure fantasy. They aren’t simply tugging at a piece of cheese connected to a mouse trap. They’ve convinced their brains to believe that there is no mouse trap.
THat sounds like what that Socrates Johnson feller said in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.
“The organization does not advocate the violent overthrow of the US.”
Naw, but most of it’s leaders have a woody for Marxist-Leninism. Pretty nasty bodycount they tend to rack up when they are in power, just sayin’!
Bill and Ted’s…my 2nd grade year was an awesome in cinematography!