Perhaps we might let our British neighbors have at it: Politicians and newspapers love to revere a war hero from Afghanistan, so it's strange that they haven't got round to Lance-Corporal Joe Glenton. When Joe went out there he must have been warned he could end up being held in captivity, but he can't have expected that would mean getting locked away by the British Army. His crime was to conclude that the war was making matters worse, and it was immoral to carry on fighting, and to say this publicly. So they put him in a military jail, presumably to stop him doing it again .... .... As a soldier, this must leave you in a state of confusion, as I doubt whether the initial briefing includes a section that goes, "Now then, men, during your tour of duty with the British Army, I implore you to remain vigilant and wary at all times of the wily foes known as the British Army" .... .... There must be signs all round the barracks saying "You are ordered not to notice that the honest government you're risking your lives to defend fiddled the election so blatantly the UN ordered it to be re-run – or that the heroin production you were told you'd be eliminating has gone up – or that many of the civilians you're here to protect want you to leave. You must also be careful not to remember that one of the reasons given for the war was to capture Bin Laden, which we never did. Therefore anyone who sees him must not notice him, as this will serve to dampen morale." This might be why Joe described his time in the barracks since his imprisonment by saying "The response was fantastic. Soldiers shook my hand and patted me on the back. One guy said, 'You're saying what everyone else is thinking'. Talking to soldiers in other units, you get the impression that people are questioning why we're in Afghanistan" .... .... Joe Glenton has recently been released on bail, and his court martial takes place in three weeks, around the time another participant in war will be giving his evidence. So the rules seem to be that if you tell a lie to start a war, you're called up seven years later for a polite inquiry. And if you tell the truth to stop a war you're likely to get banged up. To someone somewhere I presume this all makes sense. (Steel) As much as I adore Mark Steel, the American response to such a notion would be something along the lines of, "Did Lance-Corporal Glenton not know what he was signing up for when he joined the service?" After all, fidelity is of the utmost, which is why one's brain becomes property of the effective property of the government when they serve in the military. I mean, it's easy enough for someone like me to say, "I didn't join the military because I don't like being shot at," or, "... because I don't think wars solve anything." But I don't think I've ever heard someone say, "I didn't join the military because I didn't want to surrender my rights." Yet that very surrender is part of military service. At least, in the U.S. Thus, I would hand this one off to my British neighbors, with some attention to another of Steel's paragraphs— Joe Glenton might have escaped arrest if he'd been prepared to keep his opposition to the war quiet, rather than speak about his experience openly. Because, as a soldier, he's not supposed to air an opinion about the war. But every week there are reports in which soldiers tell us we're slowly winning, and none of them get court-martialled. So the real crime wasn't to voice an opinion but to voice the wrong opinion. —and wonder just what Glenton and others get themselves into when they sign on to serve Her Majesty with a rifle. Because when it comes down to principle, it is easy enough to side with Glenton. But when it comes down to law and the terms to which he agreed for service, he very well may have signed away mind and soul. ____________________ Notes: Steel, Mark. "Here's one soldier who told the truth about this war". The Independent. January 6, 2010. Independent.co.uk. January 5, 2010. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...ho-told-the-truth-about-this-war-1858857.html
I don't think this is much different to the USA. I think our soldiers might even have a greater lattitude than is shown in the OP. But let's look at it from a different perspective, okay? What if one of Obama's cabinet members came out and dennounce his policies and made cutting, snide remarks about the administrations handling of the nation's business? Would anyone argue against Obama wanting to shut him up? I think if you agree to go to work for someone, you should give them at least a semblance of loyalty. If you don't like what they're doing or you don't like your job, I think you should quit. You have no loyalty, so you shouldn't work for them. The British and American soldiers are "employees", a little more, of course, but still the principle remains. If one begins to complain to the public about the way the employer operates, something should be done to shut him up ...UNTIL... they can work out some compromise. And, of course, we should bring up the issue of ....what is "The truth"? We love using that word, but do any of us know what the fuck it is? Baron Max
Another dissenter. From the US - don't know his name but he's talking too much sense for anyone to give him any exposure. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDirPfgtS1s Behind the scenes of the MSM obfuscation: Merry Christmas? Happy New Year? See it on CNN?
