Lizzy, this is horrible. Just when I think it can't get any worse, I read a personal story that shocks me yet again. Daniel is a hero for speaking out and the fact that this administraton is silencing him makes me sick to my stomach.
Oh geez!!! Freedom of speech huh?? Yeah right!
Angie:
You don't really believe our military is over there fighting for 'our' values, now do you? Not when female American GI's stationed in Saudi Arabia are forbidden to drive a vehicle off base and are asked to wear a burqa in public.
Lizzy:
The good news is that you can't hold the lid on a boiling pot forever. Paul Hackett is running for Mike DeWine's Senate seat in Ohio, and six other Iraq war veterans are running for seats in Congress, and five of them are Democrats.
This is just too Orwellian for me. If you ever see me and Daniel sitting around drinking cheap gin in a dusty old pub just keep on walking. But don't forget that you'll know,YOU KNOW,what the truth is, and how what everyone thinks is the truth got there. I don't doubt that what happened to Daniel will happen to me before to long.
Thanks for bringing this story to my attention in that blog comment you wrote, Lizzy -- I've just written about it.
Had to let this soak in for a bit before I posted...OK, on the face of it, this looks like the ultimate irony, asking a young person to go defend our freedoms while stripped of his own. His earlier posts on his blog seemed like those of a bright young man asking himself all of the right questions, and, like most of us, never really reaching an answer as much as finding acceptance of "what is". He seemed to mature quickly though I would bet he was already a step or two ahead of his peers when he enlisted. That said, I'm sorry to say that my antennae are up, something's tweaked here and I guess we Progressives have been hoodwinked more than we like to admit. Nonetheless, this is certainly something that the Networks should run with, if only to find out the truth, perhaps that process will in itself reveal what else is wrong with our treatment of soldiers. So, I will send this link around to my database, if more do the same, someone with some real blogoshpere clout will push the story.(apologies to all who blog, but with so many, only a handful are heavyweights.) Lastly, gin is a horrible spirit. It's incredibly cheap, cause anyone can make it. Were I inclined to sit and sip with Daniel or anyone else, blue agave and single malts would grace our table, nuthin else.
My sister and I are encouraging everyone who sees this story to blog it. I have already done so. Hopefully it will be circulated quickly. It deeply saddens me the way his spirits changed in reading it. You can literally see the difference in his tone while reading his last blog.
mack, Daniel has been blogging for a long time . . . based on what I've read, on his blog, and what others have told me about him, I don't think we are being hoodwinked.
As soon as I read this part of his last entry, I stopped reading:
"For the record, I am officially a supporter of the administration and of her policies. I am a proponent for the war against terror and I believe in the mission in Iraq. I understand my role in that mission, and I accept it. I understand that I signed the contract which makes stop loss legal, and I retract any statements I made in the past that contradict this one. Furthermore, I have the utmost confidence in the leadership of my chain of command, including (but not limited to) the president George Bush and the honorable secretary of defense Rumsfeld. If I have ever written anything on this site or on others that lead the reader to believe otherwise, please consider this a full and complete retraction."
It tells me one of two things:
1) He's a bush lover.
2) He sold out under pressure (not to be confused with breaking under torture).
I have a permanent on my sidebar that says DRAFT YOUNG REPUBLICANS. I wouldn't have it there if I didn't believe it.
Chuck,
I believe he was threatened with UCMJ action.
phinky-
Yes. I wonder (?) if he was forced to write that last entry or if he did it out of fear. Either way, he's SS toast now; maybe better a "living" martyr.
Chuck, I suggest you look up the meaning of "doubleplusungood" (I wrote about it in my post on Daniel), and reflect upon the difficulties active-duty soldiers face in speaking out.
To say that he "sold out" is so misguided. . . please do some close reading before you suggest such things.
To me, the phrase "sold-out" would suggest he gained something for his acquiesence. I do not believe this was the case. A stripe or a promise of better duty just wouldn't be enough to have him throw up that ridiculous first paragraph. That was written to appease or simply fool, either the top brass, or, if written FOR him, us. More likely fear of reprisal was the motivating factor. It breaks my heart...
I read your post Matt. I think it was nicely worded and understanding (and understandable).
I expected to be "addressed" when I wrote what I did and Mack, you're right- the term sold out wasn't the correct one, but I believe what I intended is true.
I'm 48 years old now and I've always been on the side of the underdog. I remember as a cub scout- and I don't recall, but it was like 3rd or 4th grade maybe; just a child going to some huge weekend campout thing with troops from all over our region. There were hundreds of young boys there and the "Lord Of The Flies" crowd mentality was already instilled in them all. I remember there was a large group of perhaps 100 boys in a river swimming and they had captured a frog, throwing it upstream, catching it again, tossing it around. This went on for about half an hour. I couldn't take it any longer and knowing I would receive a crowd beating, I jumped in the water, grabbed the frog at my first opportunity and threw it downstream out of their reach. Just what I thought would happen to me, did, but my point to this whole long story is that I went home feeling better about myself. Somehow, I took a wrong turn in my high school years, but even that time was spent beating on the bullies.
What I'm trying to say is that Daniel is probably scared now, but what's done is done (and what he did is commendable). Maybe he escaped some legal retribution, but he'll still take the beating from the federalis "behind the scene" and I wonder if he'll go home feeling better about himself (if he survives Iraq).
Swing away. I can take it.
(swinging wildly away at Chuck) Stand still! You can't waltz in here and just post whatever you feel like!
Nah, I've have similar storeis Chuck, seem to always go against the grain, it's a calling, I suppose. I just didn't want you to harshly judge Daniel, cause really none of us knows the deal. And I think I choose to believe this kid remained righteous even when he was forced to cover his ass, if I was in his boots, I'd want to catch a break by y'all. By the way, why do you hate freedom?
I just picked gin, and the setting to mimic the final scenes of 1984. When does the time come where we all have to sign loyalty pledges (ala Republicans fundraisers) just to Blog, or speak in public. The same reasoning, whatever it was, that's been used to silence Daniel is the same that WILL be used if we don't decry the situation now.
Chuck, Daniel is a satirist. Instead of reading these posts about how his blog is being dismantled, why don't you go and read his blog. He's been writing excellent stuff for months.
I'm sorry Daniel is getting all this attention now, actually. People trying to guess what's going on with him as if he were an alien and not a man. Email him and ask him if you're curious. Read what he's read. He's a soldier, yes, but he's also a blogger just like you. And a damn fine one at that.
It's so easy to criticize soldiers and say crap like "if it were me" things would be different and I wouldn't "be scared." Most people have no idea what sort of control commanders have over your day to day life and how they can make you miserable. It's bad enough that he's been there seven months (and counting) after the expiration of his contract and that he's been extended, again, with no idea when he's going to get to come home. I can tell you from first hand experience that it is the not-knowing that is the worst. It's not like they tell you exactly when you'll be coming home. They leave that out of your orders. And they can "extend" you whenever they want, which happens quite frequently now that this war has become so unpopular.
Daniel is a cool dude. If you've got questions about his motivations, why not email him. I'm sure he'd appreciate it, especially if you actually had a comment to give him on one of his essays instead of just a bullshit comment about what you've read concerning UCMJ. I think that's the worst thing about all of this coverage. It's no longer about Daniel the writer but Daniel the stand-in soldier whose blog has been shut down. The guy is a writer, just like the rest of us. That's what is a shame about his blog being taken down. Plenty of blogs wouldn't be missed. His will be because he can actually write.
I'm not convinced that Daniel even wrote the last piece - it sounds like legalize and differs too much in style from his other pieces.
He may have posted it, but it looks to me like it was written by a lawyer or perhaps it comes from somewhere up in his chain of command.
That said, soldiers operate under different free speach constraints than we do - though I haven't taken the time to study them.
What's different perhaps with this war is that there are different technologies available a policy is not in entirely in place.
Wow, Kate. I don't think that's the story at all. I mean, yes, he blogs, so ipso facto he is a blogger. Yes, what he rights is interesting and at times compelling, but the fact that he may have been threatened for exercising his 1st Amendment Right is the lead, as they say. If I may don my foil hat for a moment, perhaps his ability to honestly answer email, (if indeed he still has access) has been compromised. I know something about being a soldier, and you are right that the uncertainty is maddening. Though not deployed overseas, and not assigned a "combat" role, I was sent TDY (temp duty) to a post and had no idea why...for months I'm sure his particular experience is far worse, and that is why I wrote about what I'd appreciate if I was in his position. I have also been in a whistle-blower role, and suffered greatly for it, so, again, I can relate. But the fact that some serviceman writes a blog is barely noteworthy, even if he is critical of his commanders. At the point when he is coerced, bribed, forced, or tricked into issuing an out of character disclaimer it becomes fascinating...
Mack, my husband is stop-lossed in Afghanistan right now, so I know what it's like not to know about the future.
My point still stands. You all can make Daniel into a poitical tool if you want, but it would be a damn shame. He's a man and a damn fine writer. I consider him a friend, in fact. He wrote a few months ago about how he wouldn't want to be used by the left as another martyr if he died in the war. Now, sadly, his blog has been martyred. Do you have any idea how many blogs by soldiers have been pulled? Countless! And many, many have not been overtly political. THE CENSORSHIP ISSUE IS OLD NEWS. Yes, it's unfair. Yes, it's complete and utter bullshit that we say soldiers are "fighting for our freedom of speech" when they themselves are denied that freedom. I agree! But that is by no means the only reason why this particular story is sad. Daniel was one of the best bloggers out there, soldier or not. Perhaps you don't know that. It seems most of the people blogging about his blog's demise have never actually read it. Sad sad sad.
I'm confident in calling myself a liberal, but I'm sick to death that so many on "my side" are using Daniel's blog just as those on the right have used others. We're better than that, aren't we? Have some respect for Daniel as a writer. Please!!
Kate with all due respect, perhaps your situation with regard to your husband's deployment has skewed your perspective. I'm not aware of any agenda to turn his blogs demise into a political "tool". There are thousands and thousands of blogs and only so many hours a day, so we read what interests us. He's talented, to be sure, and without diving into the archives of his blog, I can safely say I probably would not have been a regular visitor. Perhaps we are talking about two different things, one, drawing attention to a talented writer, and two, drawing attention to one of our servicemen being denied his opportunity to speak freely. To political blog readers, the latter is simply more compelling. I wouldn't necessarily be inclined to share his blog with my email database except for the fact that there is outrage over his situation. The truth is buried beneath layers and layers of propaganda, and all Americans, regardless of what jersey they don, need some tools to help uncover it.
Anyone know anything about the Uniform Code of Military Justice and how the provisions relating to a soldier's right to speak freely have been enforced (or not) over the years?
Maybe the whole notion behind the restrictions in the code need some public debate.
I hope the comments section loads faster now.
UCMJ is applied when and where a units commander wishes. Article 134 is a catch all that virtually anything can be punished under. Like chewing gum at the wrong time or place. Seriously.
In the end it doesn't matter what the rules actually say because there are so many established ways to set a soldier up for real or precieved issues with a soldiers preformance or actions, that it doesn't matter. take a look:
http://www.militarycorruption.com/
Fred, clicked that link, what a sorry assed website...I would never link to them as a credible source...
There's alot of information there Fred and the site looks like it has the care of people who care about the U.S. armed services and the people who serve.
Perhaps I'll be able to spend more time on the site later, but it doesn't look like it gives an overview UCMJ and article 134 (if that's the only one) that affects what soldiers can and can't say in a public venue.
I wouldn't be surprised if soldiers serving under this administration are subject to greater constraints than in prior years and wars but I don't know enough about it to form an opinion.
Mack:
I know, alot of it looks like National Enquiror type stuff. But they've carried stories in the past about scandles in the military I've seen first hand in Korea and in Fort Bliss, Texas. There are so many dirty deeds sweeped under the rug in the Army it's disgusting. As we saw with the prison abuse scandles, in todays Army it's the people on the bottom that take the fall.
Guess I'll keep that site to myself along with Consortium news. 
Fred, yea there is probably important stuff there beneath all the crap, I just don't have the patience. I don't idolized those who have served. I am thankful for their sacrifices, and I acknowledge their efforts. But I don't give a man more credibility because he was in the armed services. I've known some brave sumbitches who labored in some scary ass places to vaccinate kids, as well as perform other less glamorous endeavors, and when they retire, they don't feel the need to keep reminding us that they served. One of the reasons I hated policework was that cops are always cops, it's what defines them. I'm starting to rant cuz I'm tired, I enjoyed the debate in this thread today.
Hey I understand, I understand completely. That's what's been so frustrating, the numbness that has set in after 5 years of watching the administration wrap itself in the flag before it does a belly flop into the pig sty.
well done.
his blog is gone. erased as far as my computer can see.
Commenting by HaloScan
