Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has withdrawn the lawsuit filed on behalf of Pfc. Jeremy Hall because Hall plans to leave the military. AP reports:
An atheist soldier who accused U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Defense Department of violating his religious freedom dropped the lawsuit Friday, citing his plans to leave the Army next spring.But the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which filed the suit in 2007 with Pfc. Jeremy Hall, still plans to pursue allegations of widespread religious discrimination within the military in a separate lawsuit it filed with a second atheist soldier.
Attorneys for Hall filed papers Friday in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kan., to dismiss the case, said Mikey Weinstein, head of the foundation...Dropping the lawsuit avoids a fight over whether Hall has standing to sue if he is no longer in the Army, which he plans to leave in 2009, Weinstein said.
But as I reported a few weeks ago, a second lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of another soldier and that case does not have some of the deficencies that the Hall case did. The plaintiff in that case is Spc. Dustin Chalker:
Spc. Dustin Chalker, a combat medic who filed the second lawsuit in October, also named Gates as a defendant. Chalker alleged he was required to attend three events from December 2007 to May 2008 at Fort Riley at which Christian prayers were delivered.The lawsuit cited examples of the military's religious discrimination by fundamentalist Christians, including programs for soldiers, presentations by "anti-Muslim activists" and a "spiritual handbook" for soldiers endorsed by Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.
I'll be following this case in great detail as it goes on.
Politics
Comments
Since this case mentions 'Standing' it gives me a chance to talk about an idea I have ben thinking about.
Let's imagine that Obama wins the election, and being a constitutional scholar, he wants to protect and strengthen the constitution.
I would like to see the following:
1. Removal of the doctrin of standing in constitutional cases. Therefore anytime the governemnt is alleged to have breached the constitution _anyone_ (or any citizen) can sue them for it.
2. The removal of the state secrets privilege in constitutional cases (although possible with cases heard by a panel of judges in camera without a jury).
So how about a constitutional amendment:
"This constitution being the foundation of these United States, no infringment shall be placed upon any citizen from ..."
Posted by: Felix | October 18, 2008 9:53 AM
Given that Specialist Hall said last year that he planned to leave the Army, it seems unlikely that is the real reason the suit is being dropped. The more likely reason is that the plaintiff doesn't have a good answer for the DoJ's motion to dismiss--and now they have a better case.
Hall/MRFF asked for months of delays in filing their response, and instead of filing it they filed a new lawsuit (same law firm). So it sounds like they abandoned this lawsuit long ago for one that has a "better chance."
The primary weakness in the first lawsuit was the failure of Hall to use ANY of the institutional grievance systems, which history indicates would have doomed the suit. Chalker says he did, which eliminates that problem.
The new problem is that the military already tried to dictate that Chaplains give non-sectarian prayers--and Congress ordered them to rescind those new rules. Since Congress, under the Constitution, has the authority to dictate military regulations, it looks like Chalker is suing the wrong person.
Posted by: JD | October 18, 2008 11:27 AM
The suit got him out of Iraq.
Having dropped the suit, he has cut and run. Again
He's had his fifteen minutes of fame, to heck with him
Posted by: Goonhongo | October 18, 2008 12:37 PM
Goonhongo:
"The suit got him out of Iraq.
Having dropped the suit, he has cut and run. Again"
Shit. Just think how much easier that would have been for Bush, Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, Eliot Abrams, Jack Abrahamoff, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and many, many other KKKristian KKKultural KKKommandos to avoid service in Vietnam instead of all that shit with deferments and so forth.
Posted by: democommie | October 18, 2008 12:59 PM
Actually, the Army moved Jeremy out of Iraq because THEY could not protect him from his FELLOW SOLDIERS. Jeremy was doing his second tour at the time, and the suggestion that he "cut and run" is ridiculous to anyone who knows him. This guy has more guts than just about anyone I know, and would never cut and run from anything. The reason that the initial lawsuit was dropped and re-filed back in March was to add to it the threats made against Jeremy after the initial suit was filed. Now, with Jeremy planning to leave the Army as scheduled in a few months, its certain that his case would not be heard until after he leaves, and that the case would be dismissed because of lack of standing. This was why Mikey's lawsuit against the Air Force Academy (before he founded MRFF) was dismissed -- the plaintiffs were no longer cadets at the Academy.
The issue of Jeremy not going through military channels was not MRFF's primary concern with the DOJ's motion to dismiss. We have plenty of examples of service members who did try to go through military channels with their complaints, and can show that this does not work. In fact, we have a few cases in which going through military channels effectively ended the careers of those who chose this route.
It was the other issue brought up in the motion to dismiss Jeremy's suit that is remedied in the new suit -- that our examples demonstrating a "pattern and practice" of violations throughout the military "lacked specificity." If you read the complaint filed in Dustin Chalker's case, you'll see that what's different is that we have added a dozen or so very specific examples, providing much detail for each.
(For those who don't know me, I'm MRFF's Senior Research Director.)
Posted by: Chris Rodda | October 18, 2008 1:33 PM
Goonhongo: The suit got him out of Iraq.
Not that that's a bad thing, either.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 18, 2008 1:50 PM
I have the go ahead from the boss (Mikey) to explain in a bit more detail the circumstances that led to the sudden dropping of Jeremy's suit.
What was going on behind the scenes was that MRFF was battling the Army to get Jeremy transferred to a unit that wasn't "stop lossed." MRFF just won that battle. What this did was make it possible for Jeremy to get out on schedule with the benefits he is entitled to, allowing him to go to college as he had planned to do when his enlistment was up. What "stop loss" means is that, because of a provision in the Army's enlistment contract, in a time of war, a soldier can be kept on active duty beyond their scheduled discharge date, up to as long as six months after a war ends. Jeremy's unit was "stop lossed," so he was stuck at Fort Riley indefinitely with no hope of advancing in his military career. MRFF, which has always made Jeremy's best interests a priority, fought for him on this issue, and, as I said, won. Jeremy has already done more than his part, and, because of him, other soldiers, like Dustin Chalker, have stepped up to carry the flag, and Jeremy, who put his life on the line to defend our country during his two tours in Iraq, and his career and personal safety on the line to fight for the rights of everyone in our military, can now get on with his life.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | October 18, 2008 2:41 PM
First, Goon - 100% of military atheists who have filed lawsuits have been the victims of violent action and death threats. In a war zone, where EVERY soldier has immediate and constant access to the means of murder (a personal weapon and live rounds), that's a pretty significant hazard. Compare it to the combat casualty rate for soldiers assigned to war zones - I'm pretty sure it's less than 100%, how about you? So just how cowardly was his his decision to protest unjust treatment?
On the other hand, Chris - the MRFF's decision to use legal pressure to get SPC Hall out of a stop-lossed unit is vulnerable to exactly the charge Goon made, as well as JD's charge. We're all subject to stop-loss, and while not every soldier has had their enlistment extended by the policy, thousands have. Very few of them have the leverage to get themselves out of the situation through a transfer to another unit. I know - in my previous position as an Assignment Manager, many of them called me to try. Didn't work.
In fact, leaving him in a stop-lossed unit would have delayed the standing problem for a long time - and would have kept him in the Army even if he was left at Ft. Riley in the rear detachment when his unit went over. (A likely choice for the already-mentioned reasons of safety.) While I personally can't fault Hall's decision to get on with his life...his military career is obviously going nowhere, after all...this does present the appearance of JD's comment - dropping a losing case in favor of one that looks to have better legs.
Posted by: BobApril | October 18, 2008 5:01 PM
I was a Marine and had a column in the Marine Corps Times. I took the position that religious expression should be separate from the military workplace. I received more hate mail over that article than I did over the one advocating equal combat positions for women.
Meet the latest inductee into the Hypocrites Hall of Infamy
Posted by: Rich Merritt | October 18, 2008 5:38 PM
BobApril...
Getting Jeremy transferred was not a legal matter. It was a matter of common sense. It had become clear that Jeremy stood no chance of getting back to a normal military career, so keeping him on active duty, basically biding his time at Fort Riley, simply because he happened to be in a stop loss unit sort of defeated the purpose of the stop loss provision. Transferring him to a different unit so he can be discharged next spring as scheduled allows him to get out, and the Army no longer has to worry about his safety (he's had death threats at Fort Riley too) or what to do with him.
JD (a.k.a. Christian Fighter Pilot) is always going to present anything MRFF does in the most denigrating manner possible. He's been bashing the foundation and Mikey Weinstein for years, to the point of obsession, and has a habit of twisting the facts and speculating about things he knows nothing about. I could totally embarrass JD by posting some of the insane, ranting emails he's sent to Mikey, but I'm not going to do that -- at least not yet.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | October 18, 2008 6:40 PM
Chris - full agreement. I don't mean to second-guess Hall or the MRFF on this, I simply think that this event will be easier than most for the anti-atheist crowd to spin into a victory, and harder for us to counter the spin. For myself, I'm grateful to Hall for opening the door - his willingness to give up any shot at a military career in order to expose the injustice amply meets the Army's definition of Selfless Service - one of our core values.
Meanwhile, best of luck with the other suit.
Posted by: BobApril | October 19, 2008 12:31 AM