One thing that might be very useful is for Ms. Swift and her mother to provide public statements about the status of Ms. Swift's case as it unfolds day by day, including what our electeds are actually doing in this case and granting them permission to inform the public about that.

If one calls your electeds you'll find they frequently use the excuse that they can't even acknowledge they have even been contacted about the case due to privacy issues. And it is an excuse in this case because even when it is pointed out to them that Ms. Swift's mother has been on national media saying she had contacted our electeds (Smith, Wyden, DeFazio), and asked folks to contact them on her behalf, generally all they will say is that they'll just take the message and pass it on. Forget getting passed to a spokesperson in Wyden's office, and to a lesser degree in Smith's office, who has enough respect for a voter to actually provide an intelligent response about their boss's position. If this is the response our intellectually lazy media gets, even though they know the actual facts it gives them the excuse they need to not report fully and accurately.

Letting folks know which electeds actually are actually being helpful and how in this case before us right now, and which are not so we can hold them accountable, would be one of the most important steps in this case and in bringing the troops home now.

Good point. And letters in support of Spc. Swift can be sent to:

Colonel Switzer 54th Military Polic Co. Ft. Lewis, WA 98433

She's a coward and an opportunist. Military justice will prove as much.

Mary Conley: I assume your citation of "the lack of protection being given our soldiers..." refers to things like "up-armored" Humvees and the different types of helmuts worn by Special Ops compared to the rank and file.

What level of "protection" is possible in a guerrilla war? The wounded have the quickest/best medical care in the history of warfare. Surely you don't think we can prevent all casualties or deaths by "protecting" our soldiers in a battle zone?

Well, the real protection our troops need is to not have been sent into this war of choice (and greed for oil) in the first place, IMHO. But yes, I'm talking about sending our troops over with adequate armor in the first place. I know troops who received a 13-page list of things the military wanted them to bring with them, including guns (in one instance, the guy in question was a medic). That's just wrong. They're already offering their lives.

America used to be a country who cared about our soldiers and proved it by taking care of them both during service and after. Our great medical care in the field is sending lots of troops home with injuries they'd never have survived in the past. We need to keep on top of vets' issues to make sure they get the support and care they need (including funding VA Hospitals) at home too.

Mconley: if you can show me one shred of evidence that shows a U.S. soldier (medic or otherwise) was asked to provide his own gun, I will mail you a $50 gift certificate to Nordstrom.

I simply don't believe it. Not in the United States.

Jennifer: It was a medic I sat next to on a plane from Santa Fe two Christmases ago. He showed me the letter on the plane. I didn't think at the time I'd need a copy machine to support him this much later. Sorry. You'll have to take my word for it. He was in the reserves, don't know if that made the difference, but yes, that was part of the request, along with a bulletproof vest.

It's sure not the military my parents were in.

For stats and lots of references and footnotes on the challenges facing our vets, please check out the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans' of America website at: www.iava.org.

It's a good place to send that $50, too.

This is about basic human rights and the right to work in an environment that is condusive to performing your duty effectively. Suzanne Swift was not afforded that opportunity. When she reported the illegal activity she was treated worse. Although, I do not support AWOL as a solution generally, I believe Suzanne felt she had no other choice. She should be given an honorable discharge immediately, with benefits.

My daughter is my hero. She was in a war zone, being raped and harassed and still did her duty as a soldier for a year in Iraq. She was forced to waive her rights to 18 months of stabilization time to go back and she had a break down 3 days before deployment. Post traumatic stress is real. Be more loving and don't make assumptions, unless you have been raped in a war zone, ok?

Gecko And your service was? This is an illegal war and all soldiers have the right to question their participation in it. Not to mention command incompetence. Let her have her day in court, just as Lt. Ehren K. Watada is going to have his.

"Obedience to the law is freedom" Sign over the entrance to the Presidio stockade 1968

Bohica:

Soldiers explicitly DO NOT have the right to question their participation in a war. Article 86 of the of U.S. Military Code of Justice is dispositive on this point:

Any member of the armed forces who, without authority—

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Civilians have the right to volunteer for military service, or not. But once they have signed on the dotted line, they are obligated to report for duty.

While I certainly understand her mother's defensive statement (above) and unflinching support of her daughter, an allegation of rape is unlikely to persuade a court martial that a soldier's decision to be AWOL is justified.

DO NOT have the right to question their participation in a war. If it is an illegal war (which I and many others believe it is), they are illegal orders. The first duty of the soldier is to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies forgien and domestic. Article VI clearly states that any treaty the US signs and ratifies is the "supreme law of the land."

Article 92 of the UCMJ states, "A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, he laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.

Both the Nuremberg Principles and the Army Field Manual create a duty to disobey unlawful orders. Article 509 of Field Manual 27-10, codifying another Nuremberg Principle, specifies that "following superior orders" is not a defense to the commission of war crimes, unless the accused "did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the act ordered was unlawful." War crimes are being committed just by the fact that we are still an occupier. Just about every Geneva convention regarding the duties and responsiblities of an occupying power were broken during the invasion and the subsequent occupation.

IV) U.N. Gen. Assembly Res. 3314 Defines the crime of aggression as “... the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State…or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations…” • According to articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force.

V) Nuremberg Tribunal Charter Principle VI: “The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties;

Geneva Convention Article 1 (b) War crimes: …murder, ill-treatment…of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war…plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages…

B) Protocol I, Art. 51: “The civilian population…shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.” Art. 57: (parties shall) “do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects…an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one…”

The protection of the Constitution is the first duty of all military personel, there is a reason for that, because as James Madison so elequently stated in 1795,

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive [Branch of Government] is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

When was your service?

All war is illegal. Nobody died when Clinton lied. Bush is the real terrorist. Saddam Hussein was on the CIA's payroll. The United States is the only country that ever used WMD's.

Blah, blah, blah.

Tell it to the Judge, Spc. Swift.

My daughter is my hero. ... Be more loving and don't make assumptions, unless you have been raped in a war zone, ok?

Is this from Ms. Swift's mom? If so, thanks for your comment -- it really shows patience and civility, especially when your daughter is taking such a beating -- even from some on this lefty list.

I'm disappointed that women's comments are often ignored. Is it that 90% of BlueOregon readers are men, or is it that men just speak up more often, and the women keep their comments to themselves?

Yes, I believe that was Ms. Swift's mother writing. And I have no answer for you on the lack of reaction to women's comments here at Blue O. I've noticed that myself. It may be that people are more inclined to write something because they disagree with you than to say they agree... but do keep commenting, please!

as a female vietnam era vet i too was raped by my commander and went awol as a result of frustrations in communicating the trauma to my superiors... i got out with an honorable and a label on my name and alot of shame and guilt over not understanding what had happened to me. i was only 19 at the time. awol is not good but its not a death sentence on your life..
and getting out of the service is certainly one solution but its not the only solution.. the military's job is to ascertain the circumstances and find a solution.. FINDING A SOLUTION IS THE KEY TO MAKING THIS WORK.. the civilian elected officials role is to make sure that "due process" is obeyed... nothing more, nothing less.. they cannot intercede, change or correct past errors in judgement of those who failed to listen to ms. swift.. (even if we want them to).. their role is to make sure that she is listened to and respected and safe "today".

listening to her story i am appalled that this still happens in todays modern society but we make our society.. it doesnt make us.. i am living testimony to this... it took 30 years for someone to listen to my story... and when that someone (D.P. is a woman counselor in the VA system) did, it changed my life... a horrible thing happened to me.. yes.. but i have a right to happiness and a sense of safety...safety in my person..
its hard to understand SEX in the context of the military... you'd think a person would have the sense or right to just say no,, but thats not how it is,, the reality is that the military is a closed system much like a prison and just saying no is often noneffective, via corersion, threats, etc. its not a civilian world. you can not just walk away from the situation. or person. or place.

the military's job is to face the ENEMY.. but when the enemy is within your own ranks, that makes it a very dangerous place to be indeed... so this is not about whether a war over there is wrong or right.. its about personal safety within the ranks you serve with... every soldier in peace or war deserves the right to his or her own safety within the ranks.. thats why we have ranks, officers, enlisted, etc.. thats why we give badges of honor, etc. abuse of power in the miltary is the worst crime society has to face and solve. ms. swift case gives us a chance to do that. i hope people are listening. i hope it doesnt take another 30 years for the message to get to the public eye and ear and heart and mind.. on this thought make our Fourth of July celebration count. i hope that we fire ourselves up to being responsible for the liberties we take forgranted and often overlook. peace, hope and joy are earned, not free. freedom is the space we call home wherein we enjoy those blessings.

Dragonfly: I'm so sorry to hear you shared a similar experience to Ms. Swift's. I'm glad you got help. You're right that the military hasn't learned how to change its culture to deal with sex in the barracks, as it were. It will probably take a generation of women getting into higher ranks to help change this. In the meantime, I hope people like you tell your story so that others learn from it and gain strength - and are encouraged to get help like you did. Thanks for writing in.