posted March 23, 2006 10:57 PM            

******

Published on Wednesday, March 8, 2006 by Pierre Tristam's Candide's Notebooks
A Veteran’s Letter to the President:
“I Return Enclosed the Symbols of My Years of Service”
by Joseph DuRocher

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As a young man I was honored to serve our nation as a commissioned officer and helicopter pilot in the

U. S. Navy. Before me in WWII, my father defended the country spending two years in the Pacific aboard the U.S.S. Hornet (CV-14). We were patriots sworn “to protect and defend”. Today I conclude that you have dishonored our service and the Constitution and principles of our oath. My dad was buried with full military honors so I cannot act for him. But for myself, I return enclosed the symbols of my years of service: the shoulder boards of my rank and my Naval Aviator’s wings.

Until your administration, I believed it was inconceivable that the United States would ever initiate an aggressive and preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to us. Until your administration, I thought it was impossible for our nation to take hundreds of persons into custody without provable charges of any kind, and to “disappear” them into holes like Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram. Until your administration, in my wildest legal fantasy I could not imagine a U.S. Attorney General seeking to justify torture or a President first stating his intent to veto an anti-torture law, and then adding a “signing statement” that he intends to ignore such law as he sees fit. I do not want these things done in my name.

As a citizen, a patriot, a parent and grandparent, a lawyer and law teacher I am left with such a feeling of loss and helplessness. I think of myself as a good American and I ask myself what can I do when I see the face of evil? Illegal and immoral war, torture and confinement for life without trial have never been part of our Constitutional tradition. But my vote has become meaningless because I live in a safe district drawn by your political party. My congressman is unresponsive to my concerns because his time is filled with lobbyists’ largess. Protests are limited to your “free speech zones”, out of sight of the parade. Even speaking openly is to risk being labeled un-American, pro-terrorist or anti-troops. And I am a disciplined pacifist, so any violent act is out of the question.

Nevertheless, to remain silent is to let you think I approve or support your actions. I do not. So, I am saddened to give up my wings and bars. They were hard won and my parents and wife were as proud as I was when I earned them over forty years ago. But I hate the torture and death you have caused more than I value their symbolism. Giving them up makes me cry for my beloved country.

Joseph W. DuRocher

Joseph DuRocher was for 20 years the elected Public Defender of Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit, covering Orange and Osceola counties. Since retirement, he’s been writing and teaching law at the University of Central Florida and the Barry University School of Law. He was a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy in the 1960s, serving as a Naval Aviator in the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Mediterranean. On Monday, Mr. DuRocher returned his Lieutenant’s shoulder bars and Navy wings to President Bush, and enclosed the following letter. Mr. DuRocher can be reached at: PDJWD@aol.com

posted March 24, 2006 12:39 AM              

Hey, I see his email address up there...I guess we could write and ask him....

posted March 24, 2006 08:08 PM            

It was a letter to the President. Publicizing it makes it propaganda.

Besides, he's full of it. Virtually every charge he makes is an outright lie...including the one about the "illegal war".

So, you can feel for him but he disgusts me.

A disciplined pacifist who in the 60's was a Naval aviator, right.

posted March 24, 2006 08:34 PM              

As a trooper in the Special Air Service's counter-terrorist team - the black-clad force that came to the world's attention during the Iranian Embassy siege in 1980 - Ben Griffin was at the pinnacle of his military career.

He had already served in Northern Ireland, Macedonia and Afghanistan as a member of the Parachute Regiment, and his sharp mind, natural fitness and ability to cope with the stress of military operations had singled him out as ideal special forces material.

Born in London but brought up in Wales, Mr Griffin left school at 18 with two A-levels and six GCSEs and, although he could have become an officer, he preferred life in the ranks.

Within a year of joining the elite force in early 2004 and serving as a trooper in the SAS's G-Squadron, he learnt that his unit was being posted to Baghdad, where it would be working alongside its American equivalent, Delta Force, targeting al-Qaeda cells and insurgent units.

Unknown to any of his SAS colleagues at their Hereford-based unit, however, Mr Griffin, then 25, had been harbouring doubts over the "legality" of the war. Despite recognising that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and posed a threat, albeit a small one, to the West, he did not believe that the case for war had been made. The events he witnessed during his three-month tour in Baghdad, and especially the conduct of the American troops, would force him into making the most difficult decision of his life.

During a week's leave in March 2005 he told his commanding officer in a formal interview that he had no intention of returning to Iraq because he believed that the war was morally wrong. Moreover, he said he believed that Tony Blair and the Government had lied to the country and had deceived every British serviceman and woman serving in Iraq.

Mr Griffin expected to be placed under arrest, labelled a coward, court-martialed and imprisoned for daring to air such views.

Instead, however, he was allowed to leave the Army with his exemplary military record intact and with a glowing testimonial from his commanding officer, who described him as a "balanced and honest soldier who possesses the strength and character to genuinely have the courage of his convictions".

In his first interview since being discharged from the SAS in June last year, Mr Griffin explained why he has decided to speak out about the war.

He said: "I saw a lot of things in Baghdad that were illegal or just wrong. I knew, so others must have known, that this was not the way to conduct operations if you wanted to win the hearts and minds of the local population. And if you don't win the hearts and minds of the people, you can't win the war.

"If we were on a joint counter-terrorist operation, for example, we would radio back to our headquarters that we were not going to detain certain people because, as far as we were concerned, they were not a threat because they were old men or obviously farmers, but the Americans would say 'no, bring them back'.

"The Americans had this catch-all approach to lifting suspects. The tactics were draconian and completely ineffective. The Americans were doing things like chucking farmers into Abu Ghraib [the notorious prison in Baghdad where US troops abused and tortured Iraqi detainees] or handing them over to the Iraqi authorities, knowing full well they were going to be tortured.

"The Americans had a well-deserved reputation for being trigger happy. In the three months that I was in Iraq, the soldiers I served with never shot anybody. When you asked the Americans why they killed people, they would say 'we were up against the tough foreign fighters'. I didn't see any foreign fighters in the time I was over there.

"I can remember coming in off one operation which took place outside Baghdad, where we had detained some civilians who were clearly not insurgents, they were innocent people. I couldn't understand why we had done this, so I said to my troop commander 'would we have behaved in the same way in the Balkans or Northern Ireland?' He shrugged his shoulders and said 'this is Iraq', and I thought 'and that makes it all right?'

"As far as I was concerned that meant that because these people were a different colour or a different religion, they didn't count as much. You can not invade a country pretending to promote democracy and behave like that."

On another operation, Mr Griffin recalls his and other soldiers' frustration at being ordered to detain a group of men living on a farm.

He said: "After you have been on a few operations, experience tells you when you are dealing with insurgents or just civilians and we knew the people we had detained were not a threat.

"One of them was a disabled man who had a leg missing but the Americans still ordered us to load them on the helicopters and bring them back to their base. A few hours later we were told to return half of them and fly back to the farm in daylight. It was a ridiculous order and we ran the risk of being shot down or ambushed, but we still had to do it. The Americans were risking our lives because they refused to listen to our advice the night before. It was typical of their behaviour."

Mr Griffin said he believed that the Americans soldiers viewed the Iraqis in the same way as the Nazis viewed Russians, Jews and eastern Europeans in the Second World War, when they labelled them "untermenschen".

"As far as the Americans were concerned, the Iraqi people were sub-human, untermenschen. You could almost split the Americans into two groups: ones who were complete crusaders, intent on killing Iraqis, and the others who were in Iraq because the Army was going to pay their college fees. They had no understanding or interest in the Arab culture. The Americans would talk to the Iraqis as if they were stupid and these weren't isolated cases, this was from the top down. There might be one or two enlightened officers who understood the situation a bit better but on the whole that was their general attitude. Their attitude fuelled the insurgency. I think the Iraqis detested them."

Although Mr Griffin has the utmost respect for his former colleagues and remains fiercely loyal to the regiment, he believes that the reputation of the Army has been damaged by its association with the American forces.

"I had reservations about going out to Iraq before I went, but as a soldier you just get on with what you are ordered to do. But I found that when I was out in Iraq that I couldn't keep my views separate from my work without compromising my role as a soldier.

"It was at that stage that I knew I couldn't carry on. I was very angry, and still am, at the way the politicians in this country and America have lied to the British public about the war. But most importantly, I didn't join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy."

Mr Griffin said that although he was angered by many of the events he witnessed in Iraq, he waited until he returned to Britain on leave before making his views clear to his commanders.

"I didn't want to say anything when I was in Baghdad because I still have great respect and loyalty for the soldiers I served with. I didn't want to cause any unnecessary pressure or discomfort by voicing my opinions.

"When I returned to the UK for a week's leave I asked for an interview with my commanding officer and told him that what I thought was going on in Iraq was wrong, not just legally but operationally as well.

"Initially, he suspected that I had been offered a job by a private military company in Iraq but when it became clear that was not the case he was very understanding. It was a big decision for me. I put a lot of effort getting into the SAS, so this wasn't a decision I made on a whim.

"He understood my point of view and his attitude was brilliant, in fact everyone was brilliant about it. I didn't know what was going to happen. I thought I might be charged or end up in Colchester [the military prison] for refusing to soldier."

Mr Griffin, who lives in London, denies being a peace activist or a member of any political party, or having an agenda designed to bring down the Government.

But he said: "I do believe passionately in democracy and I will speak out about things which I think are morally wrong. I think the war in Iraq is a war of aggression and is morally wrong and, more importantly, we are making the situation in the Middle East more unstable. It's not just wrong, it's a major military disaster. There was no plan for what was to happen after Saddam went, no end-game."

• Mr Griffin did not ask for or receive any payment for this interview.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/12/nsas112.xml

posted March 24, 2006 08:37 PM            

This guy crossed the line from honor to dishonor when he publicized that letter and turned it into a propaganda tool.

Filling a letter full of lies doesn't help his cause either. And TINK, I do mean lies and not differences of opinion.

posted March 24, 2006 08:40 PM            

If you have, you would know operations and procedures are not determined by enlisted personnel in the lower ranks.

Their duty is to take the orders of commanders...not to decide military policy.

He should have gotten exactly what he said he expected.

*edit

posted March 24, 2006 10:45 PM              

*****

Newspapers sent same letter signed by different soldiers
By Ledyard King, Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON — Letters from hometown soldiers describing their successes rebuilding Iraq have been appearing in newspapers across the country as U.S. public opinion on the mission sours.

Letters from soldiers have surfaced in newspapers describing successes in Iraq, but many are the same form letter.
By Patrick Barth, Getty Images

A Gannett News Service search found identical letters in 11 newspapers. They were signed by different soldiers with the 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment, also known as "The Rock." The five-paragraph letter relates soldiers' efforts to re-establish police and fire departments and build water and sewer plants in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk, where the unit is based.

"The quality of life and security for the citizens has been largely restored, and we are a large part of why that has happened," the letter reads. "The majority of the city has welcomed our presence with open arms."

It's not clear who wrote the letter or organized sending it to soldiers' hometown papers. If they are part of an organized effort to sway public opinion, it could raise ethical questions for the military, whose officers are trained to refrain from partisan politics.
Letters' text

Excerpts from the letters:

I have been serving in Iraq for more than five months, now as a soldier in the 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment, otherwise know as the "ROCK." We entered the country at midnight on the 26th of March. One thousand of my fellow soldiers and I parachuted from 10 jumbo jets (known as C17s) onto a cold, muddy field in Bashur, Northern Iraq.

Things have changed tremendously for our battalion since those first cold, wet weeks spent in the mountain city of Bashur. On April 10, our battalion conducted an attack south into the oil rich town of Kirkuk, the city that has since become our home away from home and the focus of our security and development efforts. Kirkuk is a hot and dusty city of just over a million people. The majority of the city has welcomed our presence with open arms.

The Bush administration is engaged in a broad campaign to boost what polls show is sagging public support for the occupation in Iraq. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll released Sept. 23 found only 50% said the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, down from 73% in April.

Critics have focused on the cost of the Iraq war and President Bush's recent request for $87 billion for continued military operations and rebuilding there and in Afghanistan. Bush and his top aides last week began vigorously defending operations in Iraq.

Six soldiers reached by GNS directly or through their families said they agreed with the letter's thrust. But none of the soldiers said he wrote it. One said he didn't even sign it.

A seventh soldier didn't know about the letter until his father congratulated him for getting it published in the Beckley, W.Va., newspaper. "When I told him he wrote such a good letter, he said, 'What letter?' " Timothy Deaconson said of the phone conversation he had with his son, Pfc. Nick Deaconson.

Lt. Col. Bill MacDonald, a spokesman for the 4th Infantry Division that is heading operations in north-central Iraq, said he had not heard about the letter-writing campaign. Neither had Lt. Cmdr. Nick Balice, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command in Tampa

Sgt. Shawn Grueser of Poca, W.Va., said he spoke to a military public affairs officer about his accomplishments in Iraq for what he thought was a news release to be sent to his hometown paper in Charleston, W.Va. The 2nd Battalion soldier said he did not sign any letter.

Although Grueser said he agrees with the letter's sentiments, he was uncomfortable that a letter with his signature did not contain his own words. "It makes it look like you cheated on a test, and everybody got the same grade," Grueser said.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-10-12-iraq-letters-usat_x.htm

posted March 24, 2006 11:03 PM            

Obviously, the letter you posted was an after the fact whine against the US and Britain...written after he left the theater and a justification for not going back...in his eyes at least. Because HE himself released it for publication, it is propaganda.

The vast majority of the letters telling the real story about what's happening in Iraq that got into publication were sent to relatives, wives and girlfriends and not to media sources by the soldiers themselves. They probably wouldn't have ever seen the light of day if the news coverage wasn't a constant drumbeat of negative crap with no mention of all the good things happening there.

You're welcome to your opinion. My opinion is that he's a whining grandstanding propagandist with a secondary motive of justifying his actions. British military forces are far better off without him.

posted March 25, 2006 10:13 AM              

Taking the letter and it's writer at face value, this man did what he felt was right and true. Not what you believe is right and true, not what the government or the military told him was right and true. Following ones convictions in a calm and reasonable manner no matter the cost, upholding all oaths and contracts no matter the cost, acting in accordance with what one believes to be true no matter the cost - that's honor. Doing what you're told when your heart and mind tell you otherwise is not honorable.

True piety is acting what one knows.

posted March 25, 2006 11:11 AM              

quote:

---

Doing what you're told when your heart and mind tell you otherwise is not honorable.-*tink*

---

posted March 30, 2006 10:59 PM              

By E&P Staff

Published: March 29, 2006 2:30 PM ET

NEW YORK How far will critics of media coverage of the Iraq war go to prove reporters are wrongly focusing on the negative?

One answer came this week, in a shocking if amusing episode featuring one Howard Kaloogian, a leading Republican running for the seat in Congress recently vacated by indicted Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham.

Kaloogian posted on the official Web site for his campaign a picture taken in “downtown Baghdad,” he said, during his visit to the city, which supposedly indicated that the media was wrong about the level of violence there.

“We took this photo of downtown Baghdad while we were in Iraq,” he wrote. “Iraq (including Baghdad) is much more calm and stable than what many people believe it to be. But, each day the news media finds any violence occurring in the country and screams and shouts about it - in part because many journalists are opposed to the U.S. effort to fight terrorism."

But the blogosphere quickly smelled a rat. The photo featured people who didn’t seem dressed quite right for Iraq, and signs and billboards that looked off, too. In the now-familiar pattern, the ace detective work leaped from obscure blogs to the well-known (Talking Points Memo, Eschaton, Attytood, more), and back again, as eagle-eyed experts proposed alternative locales, with Turkey a likely suspect.

In less than a day, it was over. “Jem6X” at the popular DailyKos blog confirmed the street scene was in Bakirkoy, a suburb of Istanbul, not Baghdad.

Tipped off by someone who recognized the actual intersection in Turkey, Jem went through online photo galleries and in a matter of minutes today found a snap taken by a “Faruk” that lined up with the “Baghdad” photo in numerous conclusive ways. Game, set, and match to the blogosphere.

Later Wednesday, Kaloogian admitted the photo was from Turkey but denied he had anything personally to do with posting it on his site. He replaced that Turkey photo with a photo of what he said was Baghdad--taken from a distant hill.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002274257

posted March 31, 2006 08:51 AM            

quote:

---

and you know I hate the capital letters. Don't do the damn capital letters on my name.

---

posted March 31, 2006 04:19 PM            

quote:

---

Doing what you're told when your heart and mind tell you otherwise is not honorable.-*tink*

---

But what do I know?

posted March 31, 2006 05:08 PM            

Still, if tink is her preferred form of address, I think it should be honored.