PETER: GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE NEWS.  MY NAME IS PETER WELCH AND I’M THE MODERATOR FOR THIS MORNINGS PROGRAM.  THIS MORNING WE’RE GOING TO DISCUSS A VERY UNIQUE TOPIC AND CONCEPT OF WHETHER OR NOT THE UNITED STATES MILITARY IS GOOD ABOUT REGARD AND AN INVESTIGATION OR INTROSPECTION INTO THEIR OWN ORGANIZATION, HOW THEY DO THEIR WORK, WHAT’S GONE ON AND WHETHER THE RESULTS ARE ACCURATE.  WITH US THIS MORNING IS MR BOB RUSH WHO’S AN ATTORNEY HERE IN CEDAR RAPIDS WITH RUSH NICHOLSON LAW FIRM.  ALSO WITH US THIS MORNING IS PASTOR RANDY KASCH WHO IS AT THE GLORIA DEI LUTHERAN CHURCH AND HAD BEEN A CHAPLIN IN THE NAVY RESERVE.  ALSO ROUNDING OUT OUR PANEL THIS MORNING IS MR CHUCK WIENEKE WHO IS A RETIRED LT COLONEL IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE.  GENTLEMEN, RECENTLY THERE WAS AN EDITORIAL IN THE NEW YORK TIMES NEWSPAPER THAT WAS SENT IN BY 7 ENLISTED SOLDIERS, IT WAS LESS THAN COMPLIMENTARY ABOUT THE MILITARYS ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT SITUATION IN IRAQ.  WHAT COMMENTS WOULD YOU HAVE ABOUT WHAT THESE SOLDIERS SAID AND PUBLISHED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES?  WOULD YOU HAVE ANY THS MORNING?

 

CHUCK:  WELL I READ THE ARTICLE OF COURSE BEFORE THE PROGRAM AND IT’S OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.  THE 7 OR 8 INDIVIDUALS THAT PUT THE LETTER TOGETHER WERE GIVING THEIR OPINION OF WHAT THEY FELT THE WAR WAS AND IN FACT ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THEY FELT THE MILITARY WASN’T GIVING THE TRUE PICTURE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON.  I BELIEVE THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO GIVE THEIR OPINION, PROBABLY MORE RIGHT THAN A LOT OF PEOPLE BACK IN THE STATES IF THEY WERE THERE FIGHTING AND I DIDN’T FIND ANY BIG PROBLEM WITH THEM GIVING THEIR OPINION BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING IN THE LETTER THAT COULD HAVE PUT OTHER SOLDIERS IN HARMS WAY.  IT WAS JUST AN OPINION PIECE.  YOU’VE SEEN, I’VE SEEN I SHOULD SAY OTHER SOLDIERS THAT HAVE WRITTEN THINGS OR YOU’VE SEEN THEM ON THE NEWS BEING INTERVIEWED THAT WOULD BE 180 OUT OF THE VIEW PUT FORWARD BY THESE TROOPS SO IT DOES RAISE THE QUESTION, WHAT IS BEING REPORTED AND IT’S JUST ALL WHO YOU’RE LISTENING TO GIVING THEIR OPINION.  IT’S A VERY CONTROVERSIAL WAR WHERE IT STANDS RIGHT NOW AND I’M SURE THERE’S COMMENTS ON BOTH SIDES, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE. 

 

PETER: BOB, DON’T YOU THINK THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK IS GOOD THOUGH TO GET THIS KIND OF FEEDBACK AND HAVE SOME HONEST EVALUATION GOING ON?

 

BOB: I HAVE SERIOUS RESERVATIONS ABOUT ACTIVE DUTY, ENLISTED OR OFFICERS, CRITICAL OF POLICY THAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.  I MAY NOT AGREE WITH WHAT THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF HAS ELECTED TO DO HOWEVER I THINK IF SOMEONE IS WEARING THE UNIFORM, IF SOMEONE IS ON ACTIVE DUTY TO ASSOCIATE THAT PERSON, THAT CRITICISM OF THE COMMANDER IN CHIEFS POLICY, I HAVE A LOT OF RESERVATION ABOUT THAT.  ON THE OTHER HAND AS CHUCK SAYS, I THINK THERE IS, CERTAINLY IN THIS COUNTRY AND WHAT WE FIGHT FOR ALL OVER THE GLOBE IS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.  BUT THERE’S A CERTAIN TRADEOFF IT SEEMS TO ME, ONCE SOMEBODY PUTS ON THE UNIFORM, YOU DON’T HAVE QUITE THE RIGHTS AS YOU DO AS A PRIVATE SECTOR CITIZEN.  I THINK IT IS A TOUGH ISSUE, I THINK IT CAN BE A DIFFICULT ISSUE.  IT’S A SERIOUS QUESTION.

 

PETER: RANDY, YOUR THOUGHT?

 

RANDY: IT IS A DILEMMA.  SHOULD THEY HAVE GONE TO THE PRESS FIRST OR DID THEY USE THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND, TRY TO WORK WITHIN THE MILITARY IN THE SYSTEM, TRY TO ENCOURAGE DIALOGUE WITHIN THEIR COMPANY AND OBVIOUSLY ACCORDING, THE ARTICLE INDICATES THEY’RE BRIGHT SOLDIERS, THEY’RE ARTICULATE.  THEY MUST HAVE KNOWN WHAT THE LEGAL PARAMETERS WERE FOR THEM WHEN THEY DECIDED TO GO PUBLIC WITH THEIR PERSONAL OPINIONS.  IT IS A DILEMMA.  I BELIEVE THAT YOU DO NEED A SENSE OF LOYALTY ONCE YOU PUT THE UNIFORM ON AS BOB SAID AND YOU KNOW WE HAVE THAT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.  THEY WEREN’T ENDANGERING THEIR COMRADES BY GIVING THEIR PERSONAL OPINION BUT THAT’S THE QUESTION I HAVE, IS SHOULD THEY HAVE AND DID THEY RELAY THEIR CONCERNS INSIDE THE ORGANIZATION, INSIDE THE MILITARY BEFORE THEY WENT PUBLIC WITH THEIR INSTRUCTIONS.

 

PETER: BY WAY OF EXPLANATION, IN MILITARY PROCEEDINGS, THE MILITARY PROCEEDINGS ARE HANDLED WITHIN MILITARY COURTS AND IT’S NOT LIKE THE TV SHOW JAG, YOU HAVE PROSECUTORS, YOU HAVE DEFENDERS AND YOU HAVE JUDGES ALL OF WHOM ARE WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR MILITARY LEGAL COMMUNITY BUT YET OVER ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE THE REGULAR MILITARY OFFICERS OR WHAT THEY CALL STAFF OR LEGAL OR WHATEVER BUT THEY WRITE THE FITNESS REPORTS ON ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE WITHIN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY.  WHEN YOU HAVE THESE OUTSIDE INFLUENCES TELLING EVERYBODY THAT THEIR PROMOTIONS AND EVERYTHING ELSE CAN BE BASED ON HOW THEY’RE PERCEIVED, AND WE THEN LOOK AT WHAT WE CALL A MILITARY TRIBUNAL LIKE IN THE EXAMPLE OF GUANTANAMO BAY OR WHATEVER.  HASN’T THE PROGRESS ON THESE BEEN HORRIBLY SLOW BOB?

 

BOB: OH INDEED I THINK IT HAS AND THAT’S ONE OF THE FRUSTRATIONS ABOUT IT.  APPARENTLY JUST GETTING INFORMATION CONTACT WITH THE ATTORNEY AND CLIENT, THEY RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT TO A LAWYER BUT THEY DON’T PERMIT THE LAWYER TO TALK TO THE GUANTANAMO BAY PRISONER.  SO TRANSPARENCY, GETTING INFORMATION OUT, I THINK IT’S HEALTHY FOR DEMOCRACY BUT HOW YOU GET IT OUT IS THE MORE CHALLENGING QUESTION.  CLEARLY THE SERVICE PERSON, IT SEEMS TO ME, HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR CONGRESSMAN TO EXPRESS THAT FRUSTRATION.  I DON’T THINK THAT COULD BE OR SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINE BECAUSE OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE.  IF I’M TALKING TO YOU AS A NEWSPAPER REPORTER, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT’S A LITTLE DIFFERENT.  IT PUTS A WHOLE DIFFERENT READ ON IT.  NOW IF I’M TALKING TO YOU ABOUT ABUSES THAT I’VE SEEN AT ABU GRAY FOR EXAMPLE, DOES THAT SOMEHOW MAKE MY COMMENTS MORE LEGITIMATE?  I THINK I COULD ARGUE YES BECAUSE YOU CERTAINLY, AS WE LEARNED AT NUREMBERG, IT IS NO DEFENSE TO SIMPLY SAY MY COMMANDING, MY SUPERIOR TOLD ME TO DO AND ILLEGAL ACT SO I THINK DEPENDING ON THE CONDUCT THAT’S BEING COMMENTED ABOUT, THAT MAY BE WHERE THE LINES ARE DRAWN.  EXCUSE ME, ONE FINAL THOUGHT I’D THROW OUT HERE FOR DISCUSSION IS WE’RE SEEING I THINK SOMEWHAT OF A USE OF THE MEDIA IN A WAR THAT WE HAVEN’T SEEN USED THIS WAY BEFORE WHERE THEY TALK ABOUT EMBEDDING MEDIA, IN PARTICULAR REGIMENTS AND THE COMMANDERS HAVE SELECTED CERTAIN PLACES TO PUT MEDIA IN ORDER TO GENERATE A CERTAIN KIND OF MESSAGE COMING OUT OF IT, TO ME THAT JUST MAKES THIS A MURKIER AREA TO GO DOWN.

 

CHUCK:  YOUR POINTS ARE VERY GOOD AND THAT’S WHAT THE DILEMMA ON THIS IS TO ME.  AS A CAREER, HAVING BEEN A CAREER MILITARY OFFICER, I AM VERY SENSITIVE TO WHAT A PERSON IN UNIFORM SAYS, ESPECIALLY TO A PRESS REPRESENTATIVE.  HAVING SAID THAT, THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS ARTICLE, THE CORE PART WHERE I SAY FIRST I SAY A PERSON WHO’S BEEN THERE AND BEEN SHOT AT HAS MORE RIGHT THAN MANY PROTESTERS HERE IN THE STATES TO SAY THIS WAR ISN’T REALLY RIGHT.  WE’RE FIGHTING SOMETHING THAT’S WRONG.  THE ARTICLE, THEY WERE, IT’S VERY APPARENT TO ME BY READING AND RE READING, THEY WERE HIGHLY INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUALS THAT PUT THAT LETTER TOGETHER.  AND WHAT THEY’RE ADDRESSING IS NOTHING IN ANY WAY THAT’S GOING TO HARM.  THEY DO HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST SOMETHING THEY DISAGREE WITH.  A POINT THAT I HADN’T THOUGHT ABOUT, NUREMBERG IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE SAY.  YOU CAN’T JUST SAY YOU ALWAYS SHUT UP BECAUSE I WAS ORDERED TO DO SO THEREFORE IT LETS ME OFF THE HOOK.  THEY BRING FORWARD SOME VERY PERTINENT FACTS IN THEIR LETTER WHERE THEY LAY OUT WHAT REALLY IS GOING ON OVER THERE, THE DIFFERENT SEGMENTS AND WHO’S FIGHTING WHO AND IF YOU’RE A FRIEND TODAY AND YOU ARM THEM THEY MIGHT BE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT TOMORROW WHICH IS AGAINST THE WHOLE THING THAT OUT COMMANDER IN CHIEF IS AIMING AT.  I BELIEVE FIRST THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK.  HAVING SAID THAT BY THE WAY, WHEN THE PROPER LEGAL THINGS ARE LOOKED AT THEY ALSO ARE ACCOUNTABLE IF THEY DID GO BEYOND ANY OF THE MEANS BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK.  I WOULD HAVE FELT A LOT BETTER IF THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, YOU’RE RIGHT, I DON’T KNOW IF THEY GO THROUGH THE CHAIN, WHAT DID THEY DO.  I WOULD HAVE FELT A LOT BETTER ALL ALONG AND MAYBE WE’D HAVE FEWER PROBLEMS IN THE PRESS TODAY ABOUT THE WAR ITSELF.  I BELIEVE THINGS THAT WERE POINTED OUT IN THAT LETTER WERE OLD TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, THE PUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES, WHAT THE REAL FACTS ARE, OTHER THAN JUST SAYING IT’S A COMPLEX ISSUE LIKE OUR SENATOR OR CONGRESSMAN ARE SAYING.  EXPLAIN THE COMPLEX ISSUE.  THEY POINTED OUT VERY VALID POINTS IN THEIR LETTER.  YOU KNOW WE’RE NOT THINKING OF THIS SO WHEN YOU SAY IT’S OK HERE WELL IT MIGHT BE OK RIGHT THERE BUT OVER THERE IT’S NOT AND I MEAN I COMMEND THEM ON HOW THEY PUT THE LETTER TOGETHER AS A MILITARY MAN WOULD I HAVE PREFERRED THEY NOT HAVE GIVEN TO THE PRESS, I’LL ADMIT, I WOULD STILL PREFER THAT.  I WOULD BE A LOT MORE CRITICAL MAYBE HAD THAT LETTER BEEN WRITTEN BY COLONELS AND CAPTAINS THAN I AM BY ENLISTED PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE, ENLISTED PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE DOING A JOB BECAUSE THEY STILL ARE ENLISTED PERSONNEL THAT ARE GOING IN AND THEY’RE BEING ORDERED.  IT’S THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ORDERING THEM THAT SHOULD BE ANSWERING SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS AND IN MANY CASES LIKE WAS MENTIONED, ABU GRAY, WHATEVER, WHERE THE MILITARY HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT RETICENT ABOUT BEING OPEN ABOUT WHAT THINGS REALLY ARE.

 

PETER: WELL, CHUCK I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE CASUALTY LIST THAT IS ON THE PROGRAM THAT PRECEDES US THIS MORNING AND LOOKED AT THAT LIST AND ITS CONTENTS FOR WEEKS AND WEEKS YOU’D SAY THERE’S A STRONG HINT OF VERY LOWER RANKING RANK AND FILE SOLDIERS THAT ARE TAKING THESE CASUALTIES.  RANDY I’VE GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU AND THAT IS AS A CHAPLAIN YOU ACTUALLY WERE TRAINED AND HAD THINGS THAT YOU COULD DO WITHIN YOUR CHAPLAIN ROLE THAT ALLOWED YOU TO SUPERCEDE RANKS AND ALLOW FEEDBACKS TO COMMANDERS AND COULD YOU TELL A LITTLE ABOUT THAT TO OUR LISTENERS THIS MORNING SO THEY CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT A MILITARY CHAPLAIN WOULD DO IN THOSE ROLES?

 

RANDY: A MILITARY CHAPLAIN WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH MILITARY PERSONNEL WHO WANTS TO SHARE WHAT’S ON THEIR CONSCIENCE, THE THINGS THAT THEY’RE TROUBLED ABOUT, THOSE WOULD BE HELD IN CONFIDENCE SO A CHAPLAIN WOULD MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY BUT THEN IN A GENERAL SENSE COULD TAKE THOSE CONCERNS OF THE ENLISTED FOLK TO THE CAPTAIN AND SAY WE HAVE SOME FOLK WHO HAVE SOME CONCERNS AND I THINK MOST OF THE TIME THE CAPTAINS AND THOSE OF HIGHER RANK WOULD APPRECIATE THAT KIND OF FEEDBACK.  ANY ORGANIZATION I THINK IF WE’RE OPEN ENOUGH AND WE’RE WILLING TO MAKE RIGHT DECISIONS WE TRY TO INCLUDE THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WE’RE WORKING WITH.  A CHAPLAIN WITHOUT BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY COULD AND WITHOUT NAMING NAMES COULD RELAY INFORMATION TO A CAPTAIN AND GIVE THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PEOPLE SO THAT COULD BE ACTED UPON FOR TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.

 

PETER: CHUCK, YOU’VE HAD A LONG CAREER.  DO THE MILITARY PEOPLE SOMETIMES HAVE KIND OF A FORTRESS MENTALITY WHERE IT’S US VERSUS THEM.  WE WEAR THE UNIFORM, THEY DON’T AND THEY KIND OF CLOSE RANKS WHEN IT’S TIME TO INSPECT OR LOOK AT WHAT THEY’VE DONE?

 

CHUCK: I WILL SPEAK ONLY FROM MY EXPERIENCE AND YOU ASKING FOR MY EXPERIENCE THAT QUESTION AND THE ANSWER IS ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY.  I DON’T MEAN THE FORTRESS MENTALITY, I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GUYS IN THE PENTAGON, I’M TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SERVING TOGETHER IN WHATEVER UNIT YOU’RE IN.  I WON’T SPEAK TO, YOU’RE WELL AWARE CAUSE YOU’RE OLD RANK, THE HIGHER UP YOU GO THE MORE POLITICS IT IS IN RANK BUT WHEN YOU GO TO THE UNIT LEVEL, THE SQUADRONS THE BRIGADES, WHATEVER, THAT’S WHERE IT’S THE REAL FORTRESS WHERE WE TAKE CARE OF EACH OTHER BECAUSE THERE’S IN SOME CASES JUSTIFIABLY SO, THERE’S A FEELING AMONG MILITARY PERSONNEL THAT REALLY CIVILIANS DO NOT REALLY CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM ANYWAY.  IT WAS TRUE DURING THE DRAFT DAYS ESPECIALLY, A LITTLE BIT LESS TRUE NOW THAT IT’S AN ALL VOLUNTEER SERVICE BUT NOW MY SERVICE WAS ALWAYS AN ALL VOLUNTEER SERVICE.  I WAS IN THE AIR FORCE AND OF COURSE MY COMBAT, PERSONAL COMBAT CAME IN VIET NAM.  THAT MADE THE MILITARY PEOPLE STICK TOGETHER LIKE A FORTRESS BECAUSE THE CIVILIANS DID TREAT THEM, I WON’T SAY THE WORD I THINK.  THEY WERE TREATED HORRIBLY BY CIVILIANS, THEY WERE LOOKED DOWN, WELL YOU’RE KILLERS, ANOTHER WAR THAT WENT TOO LONG WITH MEN OVER SERVING THEIR COUNTRY THAT DIDN’T NECESSARILY UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT WAR WAS ABOUT BUT THEY BELIEVED THEY WERE SERVING THEIR COUNTRY BECAUSE THE PEOPLE BACK IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONGRESS THAT SENT THEM TO WAR SAID WELL THIS IS OK, BE IT THE PRESIDENT, BE IT THE CONGRESS, WHATEVER.  THEY WERE TREATED SO HORRIBLY BY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT THEY HAD THE MILITARY OF MY AGE HAD NO OTHER OPPORTUNITY BUT TO STICK TOGETHER CAUSE YOU CAN’T COUNT ON THE PEOPLE YOU’RE SERVING.  IT GOT BETTER AFTER GULF WAR I AND I WAS VERY HAPPY TO SEE THAT.  NOW THE MILITARY WAS ONCE AGAIN STARTING TO BE LOOKED UPON AS SOMEBODY HONORABLE BUT WE LOST A WHOLE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WERE TREATED JUST HORRIBLY.

 

PETER: DO YOU THINK SOME OF THAT SAME SMALL GROUP DYNAMICS MIGHT BE PRESENT IN THE CURRENT SITUATIONS WHERE THEY’RE SEEING THESE SQUADS OF MARINES MIGHT HAVE TAKEN SOME LIBERTIES AS FAR AS CIVILIAN CASUALTIES?

 

CHUCK:  ABSOLUTELY AND THE ** AND THE PRESSURE THAT PEOPLE ARE UNDER IN A WAY THERE WAS SOME RESEMBLANCE TO VIET NAM FOR THE TROOPS ON THE GROUND AND OF COURSE I WAS ONE, I DIDN’T HAVE TO LIVE THROUGH THAT.  THE TROOPS ON THE GROUND IN VIET NAM, ONE DAY YOU’RE TALKING WITH THESE PEOPLE THAT NIGHT THEY’RE OUT TRYING TO KILL YOU.  THEY HAVE MUCH THE SAME THING IN IRAQ NOW AND IT’S BEEN GOING ON FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.  YOU SEE THIS GUY WALK UP, SOME THINGS THEY HAVE SAID HAVE BEEN SAID BY THE MILITARY IN THERE OR INTIMATED BY UPPER RANKS IN THE MILITARY AND BY ELECTIVE LEADERS WHERE IRAQI MILITIA HELP SET THE BOMBS THAT ARE KILLING PEOPLE AND THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TELL US BECAUSE THEN THEY’LL BE KILLED THEMSELVES.  WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT GROUPS THAT ARE GOING IN THIS WHOLE COMPLEX ARENA THAT WE’RE IN.  I REALLY BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SHOULD BE TAUGHT SOME MORE ABOUT TO GIVE THEM SOME UNDERSTANDING.

 

PETER: BOB, COULD IT ALSO BE POSSIBLE JUST THAT WARFARE HAS CHANGED, IT’S NO LONGER PEOPLE WEARING OPPOSITE UNIFORMS AND SOMEBODY ON THAT SIDE OF THE LINE BUT THAT NOW THE THREAT WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF TERRORISTS AND OTHERS THAT WE’RE SENDING OUT A LOT OF GOOD YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN AND THEY HAVEN’T BEEN FULLY TRAINED TO IDENTIFY WITH WHAT MAY BE A THREAT TO THEM?

 

BOB: WELL, INDEED IT IS A DIFFICULT PROCESS IT SEEMS TO ME FOR ANYONE IN THE ARMED SERVICES TODAY BECAUSE THE ENEMY IS NOT CLEARLY DEFINED.  IT’S EASY TO PUT EVERYBODY UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF AL QUAIDA BUT GOODNESS WE ALL KNOW THAT THAT MAY BE 5% OF THE FIGHTING, PEOPLE FIGHTING IN IRAQ AND THEN THE 5% MAY HAVE NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH IT PERHAPS AND THEN THERE’S THE CIVIL WAR THAT WE’RE IN THE MIDDLE OF AND PERSONALLY I DON’T THINK THAT’S THE ROLE FOR THE ARMED FORCES IN THE UNITED STATES.  BACK TO THE MORAL QUESTION ABOUT INTROSPECTION, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF SOMEONE IS SPEAKING OUT AND WEARING UNIFORM, ARE THEY GOING TO BE PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES THAT MAY GO WITH IF IT’S THEIR MORAL OBLIGATION TO SPEAK OUT THEY MAY ALSO BE EXPOSING THEMSELVES TO MILITARY JUSTICE, CODE OF JUSTICE AND ARE THEY PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF, THAT’S A TOUGH QUESTION IT SEEMS TO ME.

 

PETER: WHAT ABOUT THE ILLUSTRATION OF THE DEATH OF PAT TILLMAN, THE WAY THE MILITARY PUT A SPIN ON IT AT FIRST AND IT’S STILL DEVELOPING AS WE SIT HERE TODAY.

 

BOB: AND YOU WONDER IF WOULD WE EVEN KNOW TODAY ABOUT THE COVERUP IF SOME OFFICERS AND ENLISTED PEOPLE DIDN’T HAVE THE COURAGE TO SPEAK UP AND SAY HEY, THAT’S NOT REALLY WHAT HAPPENED.  FOR THOSE PEOPLE WE HAVE TO, IT SEEMS TO ME WE HAVE TO CARVE OUT SOME VERY SAFE GROUND FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO POINT OUT WHERE SOMETHING HAS BEEN COVERED UP AND THE CONSEQUENCES THAT MAY FALL FROM IT.

 

PETER: WELL FOR OUR VIEWERS STANDPOINT, WHAT STARTED OUT AS A TERMED BY THE ARMY AS AN HEROIC DEATH THEN EVOLVED INTO A FRIENDLY FIRE INCIDENT AND NOW HAS FURTHER EVOLVED INTO A FRAGGING OR A FRACTURE SIDE MEANING THAT THE TILLMAN MAY HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALLY KILLED BY OTHERS THAT WERE WITH HIM AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE’S AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION ON A RETIRED 3 STAR THAT THEY MAY BRING HIM BACK AND COURT MARTIAL HIM.

 

ARE WE SAYING THAT IT’S PROPER AND IT’S NECESSARY TO GO PUBLIC WITH AN INCIDENT SUCH AS THAT, WHETHER THERE’S BEEN A COVERUP IN THE MILITARY WHERE THERE’S BEEN A VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT OR A SPEAKING OF ONES CONSCIENCE OR PERSONAL OPINION WHICH COULD BE MORE OF A PROPHETIC ROLE IF YOU WILL IN THE JUDEA CHRISTIAN TRADITION WHEN THE PROPHETS WOULD SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND THEY FELT THEY HAD A MORAL OBLIGATION TO DO THAT.  SO MAYBE THERE, WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN WHERE YOU SEE CLEARLY THAT, WAS IT CALLEY IN VIET NAM, YOU KNOW THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND SHOULD PEOPLE SHOULD THE SOLDIERS HAVE SPOKEN OUT AGAINST THEIR SUPERIOR, THEIR CAPTAIN TO PROTEST THAT OR IS IT WHERE WE’RE ADDRESSING IN THIS PARTICULAR ARTICLE, ARE THEY SIMPLY GIVING THEIR OPINION ON THE VIABILITY OF THIS WAR? 

 

THAT’S AN EXCELLENT POINT.  WHERE YOU DRAW THE LINE IS WHAT MAKES THE ANSWER DIFFICULT.  WHERE YOU DRAW THE LINE IS IN EVERY PERSONS MIND THAT OBSERVES SOMETHING.  I BELIEVE CALLEY IS AN EXAMPLE, I BELIEVE ANY INDIVIDUAL, ENLISTED, OFFICER, WHATEVER, IN THE EVENT THAT AN INVESTIGATION WOULD PROVE THAT WAS A FRAGGING.   I BELIEVE ANY MILITARY PERSON AND THAT’S WHERE I GO BACK TO WEARING A UNIFORM, WE HAVE TO HOLD OURSELVES TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN EVEN THOSE PEOPLE THAT WE’RE SERVING.  I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A MORAL REQUIREMENT BUT IT’S ONLY MADE IN YOUR MIND, THAT’S WHAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT, YOU KNOW NOT EVERYBODY THINKS ALIKE.  IF YOU IN YOUR MIND FEEL THAT YOU HAVE SEEN SOMETHING DONE WRONG IT IS YOUR JOB, FIRST TO TRY THROUGH, AND NOW I’M SPEAKING AS AN OFFICER AND HOW YOU TRAIN, FIRST TO TRY THROUGH THE CHAIN, BUT IF THE CHAIN DOES NOT ANSWER AND YOU TRULY BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS WRONG, YOU HAVE A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY AS A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY TO REPORT THAT AND GET IT OUT IN ANY WAY YOU CAN, KNOWING YOU ARE GOING TO BE PUNISHED, WHETHER IT’S RIGHT OR WRONG IT IS YOUR MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THE JOB.  IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE IT WAS WRONG, YOU ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE PUNISHMENT IF THAT’S WHAT IT WOULD COME TO.  THAT’‘S MY PERSONAL BELIEF BUT IT’S ON EVERY INDIVIDUAL.  THAT’S WHY IN AN EARLIER SHOW I WAS ON ONE TIME IF WE WANT TO TEACH THOSE MILITARY PEOPLE, WE’VE GOT GOOD MILITARY PEOPLE, IF THEY HAVE ANY EXTRA TRAINING THOUGH THAT THEY NEED, THEY NEED MORE ETHICAL TRAINING AND THAT REALLY NEEDS TO START WHEN THEY’RE IN SCHOOL WITH THEIR FAMILIES AND IT WILL CARRY OVER BECAUSE YOU WILL FOLLOW THE ETHICS OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMMANDING YOU AND OF THE BACKGROUND.

 

CHUCK REMINDS ME OF SOCRATES.  YOU ALL RECALL THAT SOCRATES, CRITICAL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT IMPRISONED, FOR SPEAKING OUT AND ONE OF HIS FRIENDS CAME TO HIM IN PRISON AND SAID I’VE BRIBED THE JAILER, I CAN GET YOU OUT OF JAIL.  SOCRATES SAID NO I DON’T THINK SO, I’M GOING TO STAY HERE AND FACE THE MUSIC, I BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW.  I SPOKE OUT AND I WILL ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES EVEN THOUGH IT MEANS MY DEATH, I’M NOT GOING TO ESCAPE.  I FEEL MORALLY OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF MY ACTIONS SO MAYBE THERE’S A LESSON THERE. 

 

PETER: THE OTHER PARTS OF GOVERNMENT HAVE A KIND OF CHECK AND BALANCE SYSTEM IF YOU WILL THAT THEY CALL IT THE GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE AND THERE’S NO SUCH THING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.  BOB, DO YOU THINK IF THERE WERE AN INDEPENDENT ATTORNEY GENERAL OR SOMETHING ATTACHED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT MIGHT GET US TO WHERE WE GET A BETTER WAY OF INVESTIGATING THESE KIND OF THINGS? 

 

BOB: GOOD QUESTION.  ISN’T THERE AN INSPECTOR GENERAL?

 

PETER: THERE ARE INSPECTOR GENERALS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE SERVICES AND THERE’S AN OFFICE OF COUNCIL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUT NO FREE RUNNING ATTORNEY GENERAL OR INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY.

 

BOB: IT’S NOT REALLY LIKE WE TRULY HAVE A WHISTLE BLOWER CAPABILITY LIKE THE CIVILIAN WORLD DOES AND YES WE HAVE OUR INSPECTOR GENERALS, YES WE DO AND THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO BE THERE BUT IN THE MILITARY, THE POLITICS EXIST AS WELL.  YOU MAY BE AN INSPECTOR GENERALS OFFICE BUT YOU ALSO WANT TO THEN GO ON HIGHER AND AGAIN, IT ALL COMES DOWN TO LEADERSHIP.  BE THAT FORTUNATELY OR UNFORTUNATELY.  IT’S FORTUNATE WHEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE WITH INTEGRITY AS LEADERS, IT’S UNFORTUNATE WHEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT MAY NOT HAVE INTEGRITY BUT HAVE POLITICAL AMBITIONS AND LEADERSHIP POSITIONS.

 

PETER: AND I THINK YOU’D FIND THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERALS AGAIN THERE FITNESS REPORTS ARE WRITTEN BY THE SAME PEOPLE THAT HEAD UP EACH SERVICES AND SO YOU LOSE SOME INDEPENDENCE THERE.

 

DOES CONGRESS PROVIDE THAT THROUGH THE PARTICULAR COMMITTEE?

 

PETER: I THINK WHAT CHUCK AND I HAVE SEEN IS THAT IT’S THE STRUCTURE THAT’S IN PLACE THAT HASN’T BEEN CHANGED FOR QUITE SOME TIME.  THE ONE THING IS THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THE MILITARY IS ALWAYS GUILTY OF APPROACHING THINGS FROM THE LAST WAR THAT THEY FOUGHT AS OPPOSED TO THE NEW ONE THAT THEY’RE DOING RIGHT NOW.  WE’RE RUNNING SHORT ON TIME THIS MORNING, I’D LIKE TO ASK EACH OF YOU FOR A FINAL COMMENT.  CHUCK?

 

CHUCK: I WOULD STAND UP FOR THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WROTE THAT LETTER WITH RESERVATIONS FROM MY MILITARY CAREER BUT I’D STAND UP FOR THEIR RIGHT.  THEY DID IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT POINTED OUT ITEMS THAT WOULD BE VALUABLE BUT DIDN’T DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD PUT OTHER MILITARY MEMBERS IN HARM FROM GIVING THEIR OPINION.

 

PETER: REAL QUICK, RANDY.

 

RANDY: I ASSUME THAT THEY KNEW THAT THERE MAY BE CONSEQUENCES TO THEIR GOING PUBLIC AND THEY WERE WILLING TO TAKE A STAND ON THAT AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY.

 

PETER: REAL QUICK BOB. 

 

BOB: IF THERE’S NOT IMMINENT DANGER I WOULD URGE THOSE TYPE OF ENLISTED FOLKS TO GO THROUGH CHANNELS TO PETITION THEIR CONGRESS, WORK THOSE OPPORTUNITIES FIRST.

 

PETER: THANK YOU.  THIS MORNING ON BEHALF OF THE INTER RELIGIOUS COUNCIL OF LINN COUNTY WE’D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR JOINING US AND GO OUT AND MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE FOR YOUR FELLOW MAN.  THANK YOU.