Two four star Marine generals demands that President Obama veto the National Defense Authorization

[lovuian]

Last edited Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, both 4 star Marine generals, published the piece on December 12. The op-ed in NYT starts with a direct demand that President Obama veto the NDAA bill in order to protect our country from the “false choice between our safety and ideals.”

they represent forty retired generals
here is their letter to President Obama
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Hoar_Krulak_letter_to_Obama_re_NDAA.pdf

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Liars! Liars!

Here at DU, we know that the NDAA does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to impede our ideals. The bill is all good!

[lovuian]

13. there is some controversy

especially with the Attorney general
it seems he may have to ask the military first before he arrests????

[rsmith6621]

2. Link Please?

..Link for us.

[one_voice]

3. Do you have a link?...

I went to the NYT but was unable to find this piece.

Thanks.

[lovuian]

6. from what I heard it was a NYT op ed

and your right I can't get into NYT
it was written on December 12 a published piece

was December 12 before the new revisions

[one_voice]

9. I can get in...

I just didn't go back far enough. I went back to the 15th.

Got the link down thread.

Thanks.

[lovuian]

10. thanks so much One voice

Can you give me feedback on this anybody
I am a bit taken back the generals went public

[DirkGently]

16. It's a big deal. Generals aren't known for casually endorsing freedom over "security."

[lovuian]

17. It is alarming and I had not heard about it on the TV

NYT is a big newspaper

Why of all things the MARINES???

[jberryhill]

22. You can find retired generals who say all kinds of things

Admirals too. No free energy scam is complete without the blessing of a retired admiral, for some reason.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Yes, for the sake of completeness

It was before the new revisions...

Not that the new revisions put me at ease either...

[ThomWV]

4. My faith in the Marine Corps is being restored.

[DirkGently]

5. Good. And here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/guantanamo-forever.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/guantanamo-forever.html

[one_voice]

7. Thanks! n/t

[lovuian]

8. thanks so much for the link

I can't always get the NYT
the generals names are on the bottom of the piece

Is this normal for Generals to do this?

[Hardrada]

11. Not in living memory.

Not since Smedley Butler. Also a Marine general.

[lovuian]

15. I couldn't remember a time either these are Marine Generals?

What did Obama think about this?

[jberryhill]

23. There are retired generals who are birthers too

[frylock]

41. we're not talking about birth certificates here..

try and stay on topic.

[jberryhill]

47. The point is that the opinion of a "retired general" is no more legitimate than any other

There are a lot of retired generals and admirals.

Many of them have downright kooky opinions, and few of them have qualifications relevant to interpreting and applying statutory language.

I am thoroughly unimpressed with stuff bearing the imprimatur of "Retired General So-and-so", as it is something of a political theater set piece.

It is such a common set piece that I am surprised you do not recognize it on sight.

[BeGoodDoGood]

45. General Krulak is a former Commandant of the Marine Corps

General Krulak's father commanded all the Marines in Viet Nam. He was literally shown the door by LBJ for saying the current body count/firepower policies wouldn't work. It ended his career or he might have been Commandant himself.

Gen. Hoar was a Brigadier Gen back in the '80s. One of my contemporaries was his aide.

Walt

[bhikkhu]

24. 2007, against the Iraq War:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/23/4048

2006, against the Iraq War: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Retired-generals-rising-up-against-Iraq-war-1201001.php

2011, against the Afghanistan draw-downs: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/afgh-d08.shtml

2007, against the possible Iran War: http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines07/0225-01.htm

...and so on. It seems to be increasingly common in the internet age for military personnel to speak freely.

[one_voice]

12. Some of the piece...

IN his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” We agree. Now, to protect both, he must veto the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress is expected to pass this week.

This budget bill — which can be vetoed without cutting financing for our troops — is both misguided and unnecessary: the president already has the power and flexibility to effectively fight terrorism.

One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.

A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans. It would sideline the work of the F.B.I. and local law enforcement agencies in domestic counterterrorism. These agencies have collected invaluable intelligence because the criminal justice system — unlike indefinite military detention — gives suspects incentives to cooperate.


*snip*

That's all I can post. (4 paragraphs)

There are three more.

[lovuian]

14. I am SHocked that the generals went to the NYT

One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.

this provision is concerning

[truedelphi]

52. Thanks, One Voice

I also find it amazing that our legislative process is set up so that in order to get the funding to continue to fight the wars (And supposedly help those troops we need to support) we can also find provisions that strip away our liberties, or kill babies, if that's what the Powers that Be want to have happen.

Obama even campaigned regarding the notion that under his Administration, there wouldn't be

1) legislative acts over 500 pages in length

2) unrelated items coming up under other legislative matters

This was an important promise, yet once he became President, he became like "What? Why me have to worry about the legislative process - that ball is in Congress's court!"

[lovuian]

18. OH WOW this isn't just two Generals this is Forty generals Freak me out

they represent forty retired generals
here is their letter to Obama

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Hoar_Krulak_letter_to_Obama_re_NDAA.pdf

Dear Mr. President:
We are co-chairs of a nonpartisan group of forty retired generals and admirals concerned about
U.S. policy regarding enemy prisoner treatment and detention.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

19. Krulak is not just a former general. He was the 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps. A rare honor.

[peacebird]

28. Indeed! All the more amazing...!

[Bigmack]

42. And his father was Gen. Victor ("the Brute") Krulak....

... so this guy comes from a distinguished line of Marines...

..and Commandants, too.

Why is it that the Marines - hardly known for their gentle nature - are the ones standing up for what is right?

`I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these (Third World) nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the `haves' refuse to share with the `have-nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don’t want and above all don’t want crammed down their throats by Americans.' –
Gen. David Shoup, United States Marine Commandant...Medal of Honor recipient.... 2 Purple Hearts (I'm proud to say that Gen Shoup was my Commandant during the first part of my time in.)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

46. David M Shoup was also top notch. He was right, and he had insight as to what was planned.

He retired from the Corps on December 31, 1963 after LBJ took over.

[sabrina 1]

20. Who put that language in that bill? Does anyone know?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/guantanamo-forever.html?scp=4&sq=NYT%20veto%20the%20National%20Defense%20Authorization&st=cse

Guantanamo Forever?

Last paragraph from the link:

Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism. They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities.

That's quite an indictment of Congress from those Generals. They clearly understand the Constitution and the oath they took, something which is now viewed as passe by members of Congress and sadly, by far too many Americans.

Edited to fix link, twice.

[brooklynite]

21. Unrec'd

...not for the content, but for the title. The Generals in question are retired. An active service officer publicly defying the Commander in Chief would be a far more significant event.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. It should read '40 retired Generals'.

Retired Generals still get called General. Think General Wesley Clarke, not in the military for some time. General Washington, he's long, long retired. They retain the right to the title.
Those still in the military would be taking a huge risk to do what you casually suggest, this is the role of retired leadership, this is fitting, it is proper and there are 40 of them, not 2.

[iemitsu]

25. smedley butler was a marine corp general

who defended american democracy in 1932.
they sometimes do what is right.

[Laelth]

26. Excellent. k&r for these principled Generals. n/t

-Laelth

[peacebird]

27. Semper fi!

My daddy would be proud, he joined the Corps at 17 to fight in WWII and served later in both Korea and Vietnam. What these generals did took immense courage.

[Autumn]

29. Wow. They used Obama's own words

They got that right. I hope Obama listens to Obama

[theaocp]

31. IKR?

I'm sure Obama'll get right around to ignoring an accumulation of executive power any minute now. The man definitely needs to look into the mirror of who he used to be. I doubt he'd recognize himself.

[piratefish08]

30. they should read DU. it would make them feel super double good about this bill.

nothing to fear here.

[ProSense]

32. This

letter was posted on November 17. It and the NY op-ed were written before the changes were made to the bill.


NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100248562

[rhett o rick]

51. The changes did nothing to fix this bill. nm

[MADem]

54. +1. nt

[stillwaiting]

33. The very fact that the bill is so vague and interpreted so differently DEMANDS that...

Obama veto the fucking bill.

Those in Congress that voted for it should begin lobbying forcefully and openly NOW for the President to veto the bill or should simply not be re-elected. They have potentially perpetrated a huge injustice against the American citizens.

[Johnson20]

35. I get very nervious when

General Officers, retired or active, engage in politics using their rank as leverage. What would we be saying if this letter had been a strong endorsement of NDAA.

[T S Justly]

36. It's obvious they're frivolous fellows who've lost their bearings ...

What's not so obvious is two Generals expressing rage over the premeditated
attempted murder of one of their kids, by local authorities, with input from
Homeland.

Would either of these two people like to run for the Democratic nomination
in '12?

[emcguffie]

37. I guess you're talking over my head.

Could you please explain, to the slow among us?

[T S Justly]

40. I'm sorry. I was talking about Scott Olsen's assault during an Occupy ...

And, surmising that was a motive for the Generals' public statements. That they're
genuinely motivated by alarm at the DDAA is a given, as well.

[Odin2005]

38. Semper Fi!

[hifiguy]

39. Those generals are upholding the

finest traditions of the US military and I salute them.

[Uncle Joe]

44. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, lovuian.

[lovuian]

55. Thanks Uncle Joe and to everybody but I am still troubled

First the Generals retired have a right to their opinion
and this bill is extremely open to many interpretations

Maybe they see the loss of our liberties in the war on Terror

I'm just wondering if they reflect the military establishment out there
if they do

then if they see a problem then maybe there is one

Does anybody get the feeling this is a warning?

[BeGoodDoGood]

48. Four Star Marine General Anthony Zinni

Gen. Zinni was a strong critic of the Bush Adminstration prior to and after the invasion of Iraq.

Sen. Jim Webb is another prominant Marine veteran with strong principles.

Walt

[Quantess]

49. k & r

[xchrom]

50. Du rec - sorry Chuckles.

Not everybody is perplexed.

[MADem]

53. They are CITIZENS and they can say what they like, but they no longer have any clout in the chain

of command.

They're RETIRED...and they've been retired for a VERY long time, too.

The headline makes it sound like they're still on active duty. An accurate headline would say "Two long-retired four-star USMC Generals..."

[emilyg]

56. k/r