Military Recruiters, Parents Battle At High School, "America, Love it or Leave it"?

From ABCNews.com

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/IraqCovera...tory?id=1258600

Military Recruiters, Parents Battle at High School

Updated 12:01 PM ET October 30, 2005

Maj. Forrest Poole is used to taking fire: He was in Iraq, and now he's been in front of the Seattle School Board.

Outraged parents in Seattle helped push through new rules restricting military recruiters in school -- specifically, rules that put organizations opposed to the military on campus at the same time as recruiters.

"I just want to make sure when the recruiters are here, that we're given an opportunity to speak with students and they're given an opportunity to speak with us," Poole says. "We don't want a student to feel like he or she cannot come up and talk to Sgt. Matthews because there's some other people ... who may be intimidating, harassing or bullying."

It is an increasingly time-consuming issue for military recruiters who are fighting to keep some of their most prized territory.

The opposition does not come from outraged students, but their Vietnam-era parents.

"We're trying to let people know about this," says one of the parents, Kurt Kutay, "because the school district hasn't done its job to inform the community."


A provision in the federal No Child Left Behind Act, signed in 2002, requires schools to give military recruiters the same access and information as college recruiters -- meaning home phone numbers and addresses.

"The school is going to turn your name over to the military," Kutay says.


'Very Vulnerable Age'
A group of parents in Seattle says most families don't have a clue the new law exists. And they argue that schools have done a poor job letting parents know there is an alternative -- that schools must provide the so-called opt-out forms that give students the chance to withhold their information from the military.

"When it comes to education, I think the colleges have the right to contact the students," says Linda Summers, a parent. "I'm not sure that the military should have the same right."

Despite the increased access, the military has had a tough time meeting recruiting targets. The Army has achieved only 92 percent of its goal. The Army National Guard, 80 percent. The Army Reserve, 84 percent. While the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps met their targets, the continuing casualties from the war in Iraq -- now past 2,000 dead and 15,000 injured -- have made recruiting more difficult.

Ann Kutay, a co-organizer of the parents' group, believes recruiters use heavy-handed tactics to take advantage of kids.

"They're at a very vulnerable age in their lives, and especially when kids are being targeted -- kids who may not be doing as well in school are targeted by a military recruiter, who tells them they can be a helicopter pilot," she says.


Multi-Pronged Attack
The opt-out forms are only the beginning of a much larger movement to restrict when, where and how military recruiters can operate. The battle lines in this fight are clear: They are the walls of America's high schools.

It is a multi-pronged attack. The accusations include pressure tactics.

Brenna Cole, a student, says she was advised to hide medical problems in order to join.

"I'm against what I call fraudulent recruiting," she says, "because I now have a fraudulent listing on my record. And it was because my recruiter advised me to lie."

And there are charges of racism.

Dustin Washington, a community activist, believes recruiters target students with lower incomes and minorities. He meets with high school students off-campus, during lunch hour, to encourage them to be wary of recruiters.


Schools in the Middle
Caught between the two sides are the schools. Principal David Golden sometimes has recruiters in his school twice a week.

"We set up a table near our cafeteria, and they man that table during the lunchtimes," Golden says. "And we do a similar thing with certain colleges that come in locally."

Despite the controversy, some students are very interested.

Marine Maj. Poole denies the allegation that his recruiters target specific groups or act anything but professional. And he says putting restrictions on recruiting will ultimately hurt everyone.

"If that access is to be limited or denied, I'm afraid the carry-over would be that the all-volunteer force may not be as capable, as professional as it could be," he says. "Ultimately, our goal is to maintain the standards of this force, to make sure we're finding the most qualified men and women who want to serve."

It is not an easy job or an easy issue for schools to referee. But referee, they must, because as one recruiter recently made plans for his next visit, the class just down the hall listened to a guest speaker warning them about recruiters.

ABCNEWS' Neal Karlinsky originally reported this story for "Nightline" on Oct. 25, 2005.


When I was a senior in High School I saw the recruiters on campus. They only talked to the people who wanted to talk to them (and there was this little thing called Vietnam going on at the time). I never talked to a recruiter until I wanted to (and that was after graduation). I was 17 at the time and my parents had to sign permission forms so I could enlist. They didn't have a problem with that. They thought it would do me some good (and they both had immediate family who had served, some who had been killed, in WWII and Korea). I guess they and I are just stupid in thinking service to one's country is honorable, right, and good.

Do we need to resurrect the old bumper sticker from the Vietnam era: "America, Love it or Leave it"?

Oh; so that's what Bush meant by "No child left behind"...

OPT OUT!

LEAVE MY CHILD ALONE!

NOT YOUR SOLDIER!

UNITED FOR PEACE

A very interesting person, this Ann Kutay. I suppose it would be fair to say she is one of the wealthy environmental types that has an agenda of her own.
I often wonder why these people have such a problem with freedom of speech. One would think allowing a child to inform themselves about the choices they have after high school would be in the best interest of the child.

I wonder how she feels about parental notification in abortion issues or contraception hand outs without parental concent? So, what do they tell the kids...Don't believe that lying recruiter, your too stupid to be a helicopter pilot?

"One would think allowing a child to inform themselves about the choices they have after high school would be in the best interest of the child."

Yeah; just like we trust high schoolers to make intelligent, informed decisions about sex, voting, and alcohol.

For those who wish to follow Emmet's recommendation may I suggest some possible locations to "Opt Out" in: Canada, Mexico, or France (for the people in Seattle it's just a short drive north, they don't even have to fly!). I'll be glad to come to the airport and

Here is a famous quotation by the Naval Hero, Stephen Decatur, which is often misquoted or taken out of context (mostly by the left):"Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong." Stephen Decatur (1779?1820)

What Decatur was trying to say is that whether your country is right or wrong in her actions or if you agree or disagree with your government your country still remains your country. It still remains your duty to honor it. These words were later revived in a speech by Carl Schurz (1829-1906, German orator, later U.S. general and senator) to the U.S. Senate, Jan. 17, 1872: ?Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.? If you believe the country is on the wrong course your duty is to persuade your fellow citizens of the correctness of your position and win elections, not "Opt Out". Once again to those who wish to "Opt Out" I say

Ben Cohen's group

Basically a terrorist organization led by John Sellers

An anti-American organization compiled of mostly anti-Israel, pro-islamo-fascist groups. Note the names and organizations and do your own google search for a complete examination:
United for Peace and Justice Steering Committee

Elected at the UFPJ National Assembly, February 2005

Baltazar (Bal) Pinguel, American Friends Service Committee-National
Joseph Gainza, American Friends Service Committee-Vermont
[url=http://homepage.mac.com/cptchaz/iblog/C1200806250/E20050705223100/]Virginia Rodino[/b], Baltimore Anti-War Coalition
Felicia Eaves, Black Voices for Peace
Maleena Lawrence, Black Voices for Peace - Oakland
Gael Murphy, CODEPINK: Women for Peace
Judith LeBlanc, Communist Party - USA
Prasad Venugopal, Detroit Area Peace with Justice Network
Chuck Fager, Fayetteville Peace With Justice
Denise Thomas, Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition
Medea Benjamin, Global Exchange
Fernando Suarez del Solar, Guerrero Azteca Project
Bryan Proffitt, Hip-Hop Against Racist War
Van Gosse, Historians Against the War
George Friday, Independent Progressive Politics Network
Amy Quinn, Institute for Policy Studies
Christopher Harrison, Iraq Veterans Against the War
Susan Wenger, Lancaster Coalition for Peace and Justice
Ann Roesler, Military Families Speak Out
George Martin, Milwaukee Coalition for a Just Peace
Siu Hin Lee, National Immigrant Solidarity Network, PeaceNoWar Network
Sobukwe Shukura, National Network On Cuba
Jessica Marshall, National Youth and Student Peace Coalition
Leslie Kielson, UFPJ NY
Cristina Martinez, No Militariacion de los Jovenes
Efia Nwangaza, Not In Our Name (NION)
Michael O'Gorman, PeaceRoots Alliance
Lisa Fithian, Root Activist Network of Trainers (RANT)
Kelly Campbell, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows
Sophie Bloch, Students for Change
Brenda Allen, Teaneck Peace and Justice Coalition
Liz Rivera Goldstein, Teen Peace Project
Rahul Mahajan, Third Coast Activist Resource Center
David Meieran, Thomas Merton Center
Kymberlie Quong Charles, US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
Nancy Romer, US Labor Against the War
Alona Clifton, Vanguard Public Foundation
Michael T.McPhearson, Veterans For Peace
Bob Wing, War Times
Jacqueline (Jackie)Cabasso, Western States Legal Foundation
Saundra Addison-Britto, Women To Women Ministries, Inc.
Cliff Suk-Jae Lee, Young Koreans United (YKU) of USA
I just googled a few of these anti-American activists, they certainly not a very nice group of people to associate with to be sure.

The biggest problem I see with all this opposition to recruitment is that the parents who are so opposed to it don't seem to understand that they will not be "sending their child" off to war, but they would be watching their son or daughter, who is an adult, act upon their own decisions and set of values. For some strange reason, I was watching the show Scare Tactics yesterday, and this guy had been set up by his friends as being a captive of a mob boss. This supposed mob boss asked him why he shouldn't kill him, to which the guy said "I'm just a kid, just a 19 year old kid!" Well where I come from, 19 means you are a man--but in the mind of the "kid", 16, 17, and 18 is also a man. Where do these young adults get the idea that they are children? From their parents who are the first to bail them out of any and all trouble, to fight in court to keep their miscreant kid out of prison, to pay big dollars for an attorney that will keep them from losing their driver's license when caught DUI, and of course, the visit to the local Planned Parenthood when sex strangely results in an unwanted pregnancy. Modern parenting, in so many cases, is the antithesis of proper growth and development in young people, and the state seems just too happy to accommodate.

I do not understand this "parenting" group. How is it that the military should not have the same access to students as other colleges. All in all it is the child (young adult) who makes the decision on how they wish to live their life. What's the difference between college recruiters and military recruiters? Neither of them are forcing anyone to do anything. They are just putting options and different ideas in front of the students so that the students have a more educated idea on what they should do after highschool.

If these parents are so worried about their children then there should definitely be some major colleges that should not be allowed to recruit. If they are so worried about the life and welfare of their child then why is it a college that is known for drugs, parties, sex, suicide, murder, rape, etc. (not a particular college, just and example cause I know there are colleges out there like that) ok for the student to look into to spending the next four years of their life?

I am pro-military, I am pro-America, I am pro-Bush. I will admit that. But when you look at this topic it's not an issue of pro-anything or against anything. It is a simple comparision between to ways of life. College life or Military life. Why is one better than the other? Isn't that the students, young adult, eighteen year olds (which by the way means they are an adult) decision to make? Or is Mommy and Daddy going to make sure their kid makes the right decision...theirs?

In my opinion, they are old enough to drive by the age of 16, they are old enough to vote by the age of 18, so why can't they join the Army or any other branch.

They are hold responsible for contracts they entered on any other issue - so why are the parents then react like they are children. If the "kids" want to join, they have to live with the choice they made. And if by now those "kids" don't know that you might be send over to Iraq or Afghanistan and might get killed when they sign up, then I don't know if the Military should have hired them in the first place.

"they will not be "sending their child" off to war, but they would be watching their son or daughter, who is an adult, act upon their own decisions and set of values."

So the objective of military recruiting isn't to send our kids off to get butchered and killed in an illegal, immoral, and unwinnable war based entirely upon nothing but outright lies?

HORSESHIT!

Last time I checked this is why the military recruits and why citizens (and some foriegn nationals) serve: From http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

(I took this oath four times so I've substituted my name for the blank, MacE)
"I, Steven Robert Ewing, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established different oaths for the enlisted men and officers of the Continental Army:

Enlisted: The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read: "I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army." The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read: "I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them."

Officers: Continental Congress passed two versions of this oath of office, applied to military and civilian national officers. The first, on 21 October 1776, read: "I _____, do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of America, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, independent, and sovereign states, and declare, that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king, George the third, and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents; and will serve the said United States in the office of _____, which I now hold, and in any other office which I may hereafter hold by their appointment, or under their authority, with fidelity and honour, and according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God." The revised version, voted 3 February 1778, read "I, _____ do acknowledge the United States of America to be free, independent and sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience, to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him: and I do swear (or affirm) that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States, against the said king George the third and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said United States in the office of _____ which I now hold, with fidelity, according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God."

The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me." The next section of that chapter specified that "the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established."

Although the enlisted oath remained unchanged until 1950, the officer oath has undergone substantial minor modification since 1789. A change in about 1830 read: "I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States." Under an act of 2 July 1862 the oath became: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatsoever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God." An act of 13 May 1884 reverted to a simpler formulation: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." This version remained in effect until the 1959 adoption of the present wording.

I thought we were adults here and could have discussions in a semi-civilized manner. Am I mistaken?

My husband who just came home 3 days ago from the war over there - signed up a year after high-school because he father would not pay for college and working full time to pay for bills and going full time to college wasn't quite working out the way he wanted to.

He did 7 years in the Army and just got out 2 months before 9/11. A year after he reenlisted into the Army again with the knowledge that he might be send down there soon after. We were actually surprised that it took 2 years before he went over there. He will leave again sometime in beginning 2007 for another tour.

This war might be not right or immoral in lot of people views, but the issue here is that recruiters should have the same right to advertise their "company" as do others. And if parents don't want their kids to join - they can refuse to sign the contract when they are under 18. After that parents have to accept the decision of their children. Wether they like it or not. My parents weren't happy that I made the decision to come over to America and stay here. In fact they don't like it very much at all but they have come to accept it.

I might not like the idea that my husband was in harms way for almost a year down there but I have to accept it since I married him and knew that the day after we got married he was going to reenlist into the Army again.

Who joins the Army is not going on vacation - they defend the country - wether it's a right war or a wrong war. To sign up is your choice. Those children are not forced to sign up. Leave the choices to the children. The Army is not a country club, and no vacation resort. You join the Army you got a job like everyone else and have to work at it hard and with all your five senses. Otherwise you might want to think about just living off the government in other ways.

And please can we stop the profanities. This might be an unmoderated forum but we should be able to talk without foul language.

We can all try to advance an agenda here. Yours Emmett happens to be the one that I have proclaimed as the most dangerous to our country's liberty. However correct you may feel your statements are, my misguided nemesis, the fact is that many of our armed servicemen and women were not recruited at their schools, but rather made the trip to the recruiting office (as I did) to sign up out of a sense of pride and responsibility. During your time, when the likes of Bill Clinton were fleeing to Canada, South America, and other "safe havens", people you went to school with were making the trip to sign up of their own volition, not dependent on another to think for them. How dare you accuse the very people who swear to protect you and your freedom of anything less than valor! You do so seemingly without an ounce of respect for any good thing our military forces does. But I'll bet my last nickle that you were the first to shout from the mountain tops that our National Guard troops were deployed when they should have been here mopping up after Katrina, weren't you? Wake up! By the way, many of the parents of these kids were also Viet Nam era "children", and some served while others did not. Those who did are in the better position to advise their kids, and yet their kids serve. Those who didn't, even if they still are potheads, stopped listening to Simon and Garfunkel and support their kids. The Sheehans in this country are but a tiny representation of the whole--one that doesn't deserve more than the obligatory tip of the hat.

I've read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers; nowhere have I ever seen the supposition that the First Amendment is there to protect the government's ability to lie to the people.

As for the "My country, right or wrong" ethos, as I recall quite a few Junker generals tried unsuccessfully to interpose that as a defense at Nuremberg. If anything, it's even more specious today.

No apologies. We're talking about the murder of 2025 Americans and over 100,000 Iraqis (when it's based in it's entirety upon nothing but lies, it's no longer war, but murder), and you think it's my language that's obscene!?

Nobody's in Iraq "defending my freedom", because at no time was my freedom ever in jeopardy by Iraq in any way, shape, or form (by the way, we do have an all-volunteer Army which has been missing it's recruiting goals by a wide margin for quite some time now. If Iraq is such a noble venture, why are you still here?).

No, I don't hold our military responsible, any more than I hold Chevrolet responsible when a drunk driver runs down a child on a bicycle (and no; the claim that he's a good Christian on his way to church isn't in the least bit extenuating or exculpatory).

As for all of the references to Vietnam, it's worth noting that the pivotal event that "forced" us to commit ground troops; the Tonkin Gulf incident, was another well documented lie propagated by the White House; a lie that cost the lives of 58,000 brave Americans. It never happened. While they served honorably and with unquestioned valor, in the final analysis they died for a lie. It's also worth noting that President Clinton didn't "flee to Canada" any more than George Bush got into the Texas Air National Guard under his own merits without patronage, or served his full tour honorably without deserting.

While on the subject of Vietnam, futility, and "winning hearts and minds" it should be of interest that a recent poll of Iraqis conducted for the British Ministry of Defense finds that fewer than 1% think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country, 82% are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops, and 45% of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified. We've already lost the war in Iraq. Hopefully this time it won't take another 56,000 dead for us to get the message.

The "Global War on Terror" is a sham, fraud, and lie to justify our unprovoked attack and occupation of Iraq in violation of the Geneva Convention, UN Charter, and Nuremberg Charter. If we were serious about terrorism, we would've put 130,000 boots on the ground in Afghanistan, exterminated Al Queda, and put the heads of Ben Laden and Mullah Omar on pikes, instead of "fixing the facts and intelligence around the policy" of invading a country which was demonstrably no threat to us, was disarmed and occupied by the UN, and hasn't been documented to support terrorism since 1985. Instead, on 9/12/01 the only planes flying in US airspace were US government charters flying Ben Laden's family and other obscenely rich Saudi's safely out of the country. Months later, Bush announced that he didn't really care where Osama Ben Laden was, and was no longer interested in finding him, and years later Afghanistan, which had attacked us, is still largely controlled by feudal warlords and is now the world's leading producer of heroin, and our puppet president Karzai is a prisoner in his own palace in Kabul hiding behind his American praetorian guard, all the while our gallant ally and Taliban patron Pakistan has been peddling nuclear weapons technology to Korea and Iran. Not exactly my idea of a success story.

As for "my agenda" being "the most dangerous to our country's liberty", any swaggering vision of "liberty" that boasts of the imperial prerogative to torture, 'extraordinary rendition' (kidnapping), and 'extrajudicial assassination' (murder), to preemptively attack and occupy other countries at will and without provocation (the last time that rationale was used Hitler invaded Poland), belligerent nationalism and aggressive militarism thinly disguised as ersatz plastic patriotism, a sham democracy insistent upon blind goose-stepping allegiance to a single-party state controlled by the corporations and the economic enslavement of millions for the exclusive benefit of the few is a definition of "liberty" that I doubt can be found in any dictionary, and one to which I certainly don't ascribe (actually, there's another word in the dictionary that is much more applicable and descriptive, but I've been officially enjoined from using it on this forum, as "name-calling" apparently hurts your tender feelings). If that's your vision of America, then yeah; I'm un-American; proudly un-American! As far as I'm concerned, you represent all that is evil, corrupt, and repugnant in America, and through your idiotic flag-waving you bear personal responsibility for all of the carnage, death and suffering in Iraq (among other things). Make no mistake, "nemesis" is correct; I am your enemy. Don't presume to call me your friend.

As for dismissing us with a "tip of the hat", keep in mind that only 26% of this country thinks we're headed in the right direction. That only constitutes a majority in this right-wing echo chamber of yours.