An AP story by Brad Knickerbocker sheds some light on the rights of active duty military to speak out against the Iraq war. Here’s some excerpts

A recent op-ed about the war in Iraq charged that upbeat official reports amount to "misleading rhetoric." It said the "most important front in the counterinsurgency [had] failed most miserably." And it warned against pursuing "incompatible policies to absurd ends."

Five years into a controversial war, that harsh judgment in a New York Times opinion piece might not seem surprising, except for this: The authors were seven US soldiers, writing from Iraq at the end of a tough 15-month combat tour.

In books and professional journals, blogs, and newspapers, active-duty military personnel are speaking publicly and critically as never before about an ongoing war.

However harsh the language, the soldiers' status may protect them from military discipline.

"Enlisted men, so long as they ensure that they explicitly state that they are expressing their own opinion, can say anything they want, which is exactly what these men did," writes active-duty Army Lt. Col. Bob Bateman in a blog at the online information-exchange and discussion site Small Wars Journal.

But he takes them to task for asserting that they have knowledge about conduct of the war which is "way above and beyond their positions."

"The fact that they, like me, wear uniforms should not convey some sort of magic pixie-dust validity to their opinions on events way beyond their personal experience, just as it does not for mine," writes Colonel Bateman, recently back from Iraq himself.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070829/ts_csm/aspeakout;_ylt=AgQpDxZybMEYj0vPSTFiyrp34T0D

The quickest and easiest way would be via a media query as you suggest. Patient’s rights would make it very difficult for you or I although as you know, anyone can make an FOI request and DOD could drag its feet for a long time before answering. Maybe this AP story will revive interest in the seven and a letter to the NYT editor might get some action. If I were a journalist, I would want to interview any or all of them when they get home which should be soon or may have already happened.

“And, I might add, the idea that "we win, you lose" as a mantra is childish at best. So, I ask -- how is it that it continues to work?”

Because too many misunderstand the true value of competition (competing with yourself and testing your capabilities) and how to diffuse not inflame a conflict. You are aware that the optimum outcome in a conflict is when both sides win. Those who are victims of Repug manipulation think one side must lose for the other to win.

When you select a religion that says, in order to be saved, you have to believe as I do or participate in a sport or business where winning means deflating or dehumanizing the opposition, you are blind to hypocrisy. At the most basic level when you are insecure about yourself and to feel good about yourself, you have to put others down because at least that means I am better than them, you dismiss your inner feelings and the hurt you are causing to others.

It also comes down to individuals, religions and cultures that see the world in black and white terms. Since I am not gay, than no one else can be gay, so it has to be wrong, especially if the messengers of my beliefs tell me so. Black and white viewers don’t understand the concept that it is OK to disagree.

It might seem that a black and white world is a much less complex way to live and thus feels safer. Actually a gray world feels safer to people like you and me, because we are not trapped into one outcome and can adjust to any situation while still feeling good about ourselves. Imagine the conflict in someone like Craig who by nature is a homosexual and by socialization believes he has no right to trust his natural feelings and must reside in the closet when the multitude is gathered around the closet and he has to tell his wife and everyone that he is not in the closet. That is the kind of emotional turmoil that goes on in a black and white view of the world. Now compound that with a gender socialization that says a man can’t trust his true feelings and is only allowed to use one of his emotions, anger.

Unfortunately, throughout history this kind of thinking has created death and mayhem, especially when two black and white groups clash.

For what it is worth, after reading his response to me, I believe he is a former Marine.

"have any of you boys and girls ever given any thought to the width of your "stance" while taking a dump?"

Other than when using a Japanese floor toilet or out in nature, no.

The Idaho Statesman that has the most comprehensive coverage had this story on gay activists views.

Gay activists scornful of senator's ‘I'm not gay' statement

http://www.idahostatesman.com/larrycraig/story/145526.html

Initial Aug 28 story:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews/story/143801.html

I’ve read Glenn’s articles and a lot of comments on FISA and have some basic questions. When FISA was first enacted in 1979 I believe, the number and volume of calls due to our primitive electronic capability at the time was extremely small compared to today. How do FISA warranted calls provide protection considering the enormous volume? Is some judge going to be able to sift through that volume in any meaningful and timely way to provide the protection we need? Are we sure if the Repugs and Dems had left FISA alone, would we really have protection from those who want to circumvent liberties because the judge’s surveillance job would be extremely difficult due to the sheer volume?