Some US soldiers see the truth!!

[sealybobo]

I (name), 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.)

What part of the bold part are people not getting? When the CIC i.e. the President of the United States or CENTCOM orders your unit to deploy to Iraq or where ever you are going what part of this oath allows you to to be selective on a set of deployment orders?

Former White House political director Sara Taylor's testimony today at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing proved her to be yet another Monica Goodling-style drone. We already knew that these people's only allegiance is to Bush and they have no conception of the Constitution or any authority other than their Great Leader.

But actually hearing her let her true beliefs slip out is stunning.

Luckily, Senator Patrick Leahy nailed her on it.

As Andrew Sullivan commented: "Here's what's been wrong with the Bush administration from Day One."

Read it and weep:

cal in cali's diary :: ::
Transcript:

Leahy: And then you said, I took an oath to the President, and I take that oath very seriously. Did you mean, perhaps, you took an oath to the Constitution?

Taylor: Uh, I, uh, yes, you're correct, I took an oath to the Constitution. Uh, but, what--

Leahy: Did you take a second oath to the President?

Taylor: I did not. I--

Leahy: So the answer was incorrect.

Taylor: The answer was incorrect. What I should have said is that, I took an oath, I took that oath seriously. And I believe that taking that oath means that I need to respect, and do respect, my service to the President.
Didya get that? She DOES actually thinks she took an oath to serve the President!

Then Leahy let her have it:

Leahy: No, the oath says that you take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. That is your paramount duty. I know that the President refers to the government being his government -- it's not. It's the government of the people of America. Your oath is not to uphold the President, nor is mine to uphold the Senate. My oath, like your oath, is to uphold the Constitution.
When challenged, she blinked stupidly like a deer caught in the headlights.

Thank you, Senator Leahy, for calling bull**** and standing up for the Constitution!

Daily Kos: Sara Taylor: "I took an oath to the President"

 

[DiamondDave]

I just talked to my Ron Paul buddy. He said, "we didn't go to iraq for oil". He said that we are invading the middle east because muslims do not believe in giving out loans and charging interest. In other words, we want the middle east to buy into our Federal Reserve System.

Screw the oil my buddy says. That's just a bonus. They want to control the middle east the same way the Federal Reserve contols us. Through our money.

And he says we wanted Hugo Chavez to fall in line too and he didn't. That's why we tried to kill him. So he socialized his oil rather than let the West take over his country.

I think our government is totally currupt and evil. At least when the GOP are in charge. Chaney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld. Basically all the members of PNAC.

 

[sealybobo]

and yes I posted that bullshit before and none of you left wing retards can justify it

Care to provide links like I have that China is benefitting from Iraq oil and NOT us?

 

[Andrew2382]

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.)

 

[BlackAsCoal]

They stop lost our soldiers over and over again to go back to Iraq and sit in the middle of a civil war. Bush didn't care about progress because Haloburton & Blackwater were making $10 billion dollars a month. Why would you want to win when losing is so lucrative? So these soldiers kept getting sent back and as time went on they realized they were not doing the right thing. They were being used in a war for profit. And AMERICA wasn't even profitting. Haloburton & Blackwater were, along with the oil companies. So this soldier's wife is leaving him and he lost his job and meanwhile Blackwater employees are making $250K to their $30k. And then they see guys like John McCain voting against veteran bills???

I'd go awol too.

See, this is what Rev. Wright meant by God Damn America. Not GD Gore or Clinton or Kerry or Obama, but God Damn the Republicans who have been ruining, I mean running this country for the past 8 years.

And GOD DAMN the guys running the country during Viet Nam! Not Kennedy, but Nixon & Johnson. LOL.

I have a lot of respect for your thoughts my brother. You're a fighter .. and the right has a lot more of those than we do.

But democrats are about to be in control of the entire government. If you think war isn't on the agenda with democrats in control you would be mistaken .. and just remember who told you.

I just hope you're prepared to turn that anger towards the Democratic Party when it happens.

 

[Navy1960]

Article 92 Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Under current law, and the Manual for Courts-Martial, "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

Article 90 UCMJ Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his office; or

(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”


The point here is that all person(s) in the US Military are NOT subject to civilian law, they are subject to the UCMJ. 1. Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq and Afghansitan. 2. The President of the United States being the CIC acting upon that authorization even if you or I think it was wrong. ordered the US Military to deploy into those area's with full constitutional authority making it a LAWFUL order. 3. The chain of command i.e. the Officers appointed under the President acting on those orders issues orders for deployment and those in the chain of command are expected to follow it.

 

[Andrew2382]

newsobserver.com | In milestone deal, China to produce oil in Iraq


now why did it go to China?


Senate Democrats try to block no-bid contracts for Iraq oil - International Herald Tribune

A group of Democratic senators led by Charles Schumer of New York is appealing to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to block a set of contentious no-bid oil contracts that Iraq has decided to award to the Western oil giants Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP.

If that appeal, which Schumer's office said it faxed in the form of a letter to the State Department on Monday, is not heeded, the senators will try to cut off financing for as-yet-unspecified programs in Iraq that are not directly in support of U.S. troops, Schumer said in an interview on Monday.

The other senators include John Kerry of Massachusetts, the former presidential nominee who is a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee; and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who serves on the Armed Services Committee.

The New York Times and International Herald Tribune reported last week that the oil companies were in the latter stages of negotiating service contracts that would return them to Iraq 36 years after they were forced out by Saddam Hussein. The contracts, which have not been put out for bid, are modest in size but would also grant the companies advantages in later bidding for much more lucrative agreements to exploit Iraq's richest oil fields.

 

[sealybobo]

I have a lot of respect for your thoughts my brother. You're a fighter .. and the right has a lot more of those than we do.

But democrats are about to be in control of the entire government. If you think war isn't on the agenda with democrats in control you would be mistaken .. and just remember who told you.

I just hope you're prepared to turn that anger towards the Democratic Party when it happens.

You might be right. I believe the Federal Reserve owns both parties and the democrats aren't going to undo the stranglehold the rich have on our country.

But, I think the Democrats will fight to get the middle class better wages, try to make trade fair for American companies, shift some of the tax burden off of us and fund social programs the GOP won't fund.

But you will hear from me if the all Democratic government starts pulling shady shit. The reason I am so anti GOP is because of NEWT, DELAY, BOEHNER, HASTERT & BUSH. 16 years of bullshit. They absolutely fucked the middle class.

But I don't think the Dems are perfect. Its an election year and there is no point splitting hairs about how the Democrats aren't perfect, because the GOP has gotten so out of control corrupt that the only thing that matters to me right now is they get the fuck out of office.

I imagine this is what it was like when the Dems had control of Congress back in the 80's. They spent soooo much money and there was tons of corruption and waste.

But the Democrats don't get the kind of loyalty the GOP candidates get. Obama is the Jackie Robinson of politics. He has to be perfect or he won't get elected and certainly won't get re-elected if he does a bad job.

Just look at how bad daddy bush did back in the 80's. And the GOP had the balls to run his son? And he won??? Can you imagine Jimmy Carter's son running? He wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[Navy1960]

Former White House political director Sara Taylor's testimony today at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing proved her to be yet another Monica Goodling-style drone. We already knew that these people's only allegiance is to Bush and they have no conception of the Constitution or any authority other than their Great Leader.

But actually hearing her let her true beliefs slip out is stunning.

Luckily, Senator Patrick Leahy nailed her on it.

As Andrew Sullivan commented: "Here's what's been wrong with the Bush administration from Day One."

Read it and weep:

cal in cali's diary :: ::
Transcript:

Leahy: And then you said, I took an oath to the President, and I take that oath very seriously. Did you mean, perhaps, you took an oath to the Constitution?

Taylor: Uh, I, uh, yes, you're correct, I took an oath to the Constitution. Uh, but, what--

Leahy: Did you take a second oath to the President?

Taylor: I did not. I--

Leahy: So the answer was incorrect.

Taylor: The answer was incorrect. What I should have said is that, I took an oath, I took that oath seriously. And I believe that taking that oath means that I need to respect, and do respect, my service to the President.
Didya get that? She DOES actually thinks she took an oath to serve the President!

Then Leahy let her have it:

Leahy: No, the oath says that you take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. That is your paramount duty. I know that the President refers to the government being his government -- it's not. It's the government of the people of America. Your oath is not to uphold the President, nor is mine to uphold the Senate. My oath, like your oath, is to uphold the Constitution.
When challenged, she blinked stupidly like a deer caught in the headlights.

Thank you, Senator Leahy, for calling bull**** and standing up for the Constitution!

Daily Kos: Sara Taylor: "I took an oath to the President"

I believe I posted the oath for enlisted personnel sealy and that oath is very clear as to whom enlisted personnel follow order from. Sen. Leahy did NOT take the same oath that an enlisted person in the Military took. Yes they both swear to uphold and defend the constitution, however , Officers and even Sen. Leahy do not swear in an oath to follow the Orders of the President of the United States unlike enlisted personnel. It seems the honorable Sen. Leahy neglected to mention this little fact.

 

[sealybobo]

newsobserver.com | In milestone deal, China to produce oil in Iraq


now why did it go to China?


Senate Democrats try to block no-bid contracts for Iraq oil - International Herald Tribune

A group of Democratic senators led by Charles Schumer of New York is appealing to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to block a set of contentious no-bid oil contracts that Iraq has decided to award to the Western oil giants Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP.

If that appeal, which Schumer's office said it faxed in the form of a letter to the State Department on Monday, is not heeded, the senators will try to cut off financing for as-yet-unspecified programs in Iraq that are not directly in support of U.S. troops, Schumer said in an interview on Monday.

The other senators include John Kerry of Massachusetts, the former presidential nominee who is a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee; and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who serves on the Armed Services Committee.

The New York Times and International Herald Tribune reported last week that the oil companies were in the latter stages of negotiating service contracts that would return them to Iraq 36 years after they were forced out by Saddam Hussein. The contracts, which have not been put out for bid, are modest in size but would also grant the companies advantages in later bidding for much more lucrative agreements to exploit Iraq's richest oil fields.

No wonder China is funding this war. Not only do they get oil contracts, we now owe them a trillion dollars for US doing all the work.

And trust me, this story doesn't mean US oil companies aren't also benefitting. We can't do it all by ourselves. Hell, soon we will even be asking Iran for help. And do you think they won't want some of the spoils?

I remember when this occupation was starting to seem like a quagmire. I kept screaming, "why don't we get Iran to help", or any other countries worth a damn. And it seemed like we didn't want to share in the spoils.

Please don't show me that China is helping. For god sakes, we continue to do business with china after they poison our children and pets. So it is no suprise that THEY are the first ones to get their hands on Iraq oil. Shocker!!!

 

[sealybobo]

I believe I posted the oath for enlisted personnel sealy and that oath is very clear as to whom enlisted personnel follow order from. Sen. Leahy did NOT take the same oath that an enlisted person in the Military took. Yes they both swear to uphold and defend the constitution, however , Officers and even Sen. Leahy do not swear in an oath to follow the Orders of the President of the United States unlike enlisted personnel. It seems the honorable Sen. Leahy neglected to mention this little fact.

I understand.

That story was actually about that Sara Taylor chick who said she took an oath to the President. She meant the Constitution, I think. Or did she?

 

[politicalguy]

lock him up why? because of his moral beliefs???? I know your gonna say then why did he join the military...because he probably believed the line off bullshit he was told by the recruiter that it was easy money for college. your statement shows the intolerance and ignorant mentality of republican warhawk views.

I think when one joins the military he/she must understand the circumstances he/she are about to endure. They do not get to call the shots, but rather must carry them out- which I believe to be an unfortunate but inevitable aspect of military power.

Of course there are going to be times when soldiers disagree with their orders, but they do not have the capacity to pick and choose what they fight for. It's disturbing to think that one has no say in the cause that they might die for- but that is how the military operates here and overseas (where still many democratic governances require all citizens to enlist at 18.) The horrifying atrocities of Vietnam define this, but there was a draft in place and these individuals did not volunteer. By signing up for the army one is making a commitment. If were we were to allow our National Guard, infantry, Marines, Navy and Airforce to decline missions then our national security would be obliterated.

I don't think this soldier who values his life and opinion should be locked up- but I don't think the army is the right path for him and should be discharged. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Andrew2382]

No wonder China is funding this war. Not only do they get oil contracts, we now owe them a trillion dollars for US doing all the work.

And trust me, this story doesn't mean US oil companies aren't also benefitting. We can't do it all by ourselves. Hell, soon we will even be asking Iran for help. And do you think they won't want some of the spoils?

I remember when this occupation was starting to seem like a quagmire. I kept screaming, "why don't we get Iran to help", or any other countries worth a damn. And it seemed like we didn't want to share in the spoils.

Please don't show me that China is helping. For god sakes, we continue to do business with china after they poison our children and pets. So it is no suprise that THEY are the first ones to get their hands on Iraq oil. Shocker!!!

Wow, you are dense....US oil companies haven't had a presnece there in 30+ years since Saddam booted them out.


Now you are going with theories on Iran. here this pic was already poste dbut it applies double for you

 

[Navy1960]

I understand.

That story was actually about that Sara Taylor chick who said she took an oath to the President. She meant the Constitution, I think. Or did she?

I would allow that a young person comes in front of a Senate committee sealy and with all those cameras and reporters and then a panel of country club gentlemen lets say that on occasion throw a bone to the little people was a little bit intimidated. If I were her I would have asked them how much Energy are you saving Mr. Leahy by having your Chevy 3500 One Ton Black Suburban sit in front of the US Senate steps with your driver in it and the engine running , so that you won't get too cold when you get in. Now thats a story. lol

 

[BlackAsCoal]

An unlawful order is an unlawful order BaC if you served in the Military you know that. However, the arguement of CO status would hold a lot more meaning to me if for example a young person was "drafted" into the US Military and by no choice of their own found themsleves in a situation where due to the dictates of CO status unable to go to War. This I submit does not apply for an all volunteer force in that if one were a CO and wish to claim that based on the the grounds allowed, how is that the person did not object just a few short months prior to his AIT training? This is a very weak arguement. US Military personnel are subject to the UCMJ and not the same laws that you and I are as civilians and yes they do have limited rights. They know this though when they raise their hands and swear the oath. The US Military functions on the permise on unified chain of command and that the word individual is non starter in the Military. When a person goes outside that chain of command and becomes an individual they no longer are able to function within the Military and effect the workings of the units they are in in both morale and safety. The point being, the Military is not free ride to college, nor is it a free ride to a retirement check, you earn every single bit of it. If your not willing to earn the benefits of the Military and function within the boundries that you know prior to joining then I submit a very simple soultion. Do not Join!!

But you didn't answer the questions I asked.

I understand the military perspective .. and the CO status is applicable whether it applies to a draftee or a volunteer. My point is that you are not arguing the specifics of the law nor the intent of CO status. What you're arguing is military perception in my opinion. The reality is the military requires lots of individuals, and often times many of those individuals do not fit for a variety of reasons. Irrespective of the perception of the military as one unit, ther reality is that it must make room to remove individuals who don't fit in order to maintain its unity.

Your perspective that it shouldn't apply to volunteers is an opinion, not based on the law or the intent of CO status.

I've been involved in a fairly high profile case much like this one, except the soldier was a Sargent and a combat vet and there have been many other seasoned combat vets who simply had enough.

My question to you is a question he asked me .. Is his loyalty only to his uniform, or is it to his country?

 

[DiamondDave]

I think when one joins the military he/she must understand the circumstances he/she are about to endure. They do not get to call the shots, but rather must carry them out- which I believe to be an unfortunate but inevitable aspect of military power.

Of course there are going to be times when soldiers disagree with their orders, but they do not have the capacity to pick and choose what they fight for. It's disturbing to think that one has no say in the cause that they might die for- but that is how the military operates here and overseas (where still many democratic governances require all citizens to enlist at 18.) The horrifying atrocities of Vietnam define this, but there was a draft in place and these individuals did not volunteer. By signing up for the army one is making a commitment. If were we were to allow our National Guard, infantry, Marines, Navy and Airforce to decline missions then our national security would be obliterated.

I don't think this soldier who values his life and opinion should be locked up- but I don't think the army is the right path for him and should be discharged. It just doesn't work that way.

If you go about your discharge and do not go AWOL, disobey orders, etc.. .then yes... get your dishonorable discharge...

You start violating your orders, going AWOL, etc.. yes you indeed deserve to be locked up... and in cases of desertion and treason, executed

 

[sealybobo]

Wow, you are dense....US oil companies haven't had a presnece there in 30+ years since Saddam booted them out.


Now you are going with theories on Iran. here this pic was already poste dbut it applies double for you

One muggy evening this summer, Qubad Talabani, the 31-year-old son of the president of Iraq, was chatting over drinks at a Dupont Circle bar when his BlackBerry rang. "It's Ray Hunt," Talabani said, looking at the caller ID on his phone. The Washington representative of the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government apologized for the interruption, and turned away to take the call.

His caller is a man who has no trouble getting his phone calls answered at any hour, anywhere in the world. A Bush/Cheney fundraising Pioneer, a member of Bush's President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and the president of the Dallas-based Hunt Oil company, Ray Hunt is the kind of Texas oilman with easy insider access to the Bush White House. Perhaps not coincidentally, he also heads the first American oil firm to have received an oil exploration contract with the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government, announced last September. As such, he has come to epitomize one of the more glaring contradictions about the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq and its oil wealth. Namely: If the Bush administration, as it proclaims, supports passage of an Iraqi oil law that would share the country's wealth across ethnic and regional divides, why do Bush-linked companies keep getting Kurdish-area oil concessions that bypass the Iraqi national government?

Hunt Oil isn't the only one. This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that another Bush administration insider, Richard Perle, had approached Talabani seeking an Iraqi Kurdish oil concession on behalf of a consortium involving Turkish oil companies and the Kazakh government. "The K18 concession, which is estimated to hold 150 million or more barrels of oil, would potentially be operated by Houston-based Endeavour International," reported the Journal. The Hunt Oil and Perle-Turkish-Kazakh ventures are among more than twenty oil contracts signed (with dozens more under consideration) by the Kurdish Regional Government, in a process conducted largely in the dark. As troubling, several of the proposed Kurdish oil deals would financially benefit key Washington figures with close ties to the Bush administration.

The Hunt for Kurdish Oil

 

[Navy1960]

But you didn't answer the questions I asked.

I understand the military perspective .. and the CO status is applicable whether it applies to a draftee or a volunteer. My point is that you are not arguing the specifics of the law nor the intent of CO status. What you're arguing is military perception in my opinion. The reality is the military requires lots of individuals, and often times many of those individuals do not fit for a variety of reasons. Irrespective of the perception of the military as one unit, ther reality is that it must make room to remove individuals who don't fit in order to maintain its unity.

Your perspective that it shouldn't apply to volunteers is an opinion, not based on the law or the intent of CO status.

I've been involved in a fairly high profile case much like this one, except the soldier was a Sargent and a combat vet and there have been many other seasoned combat vets who simply had enough.

My question to you is a question he asked me .. Is his loyalty only to his uniform, or is it to his country?

His loyality BaC is to the constitution and the President and the Officers appointed over him. I think in an earlier post not directed to you from a legal standpoint you have your answer. So not to crowd up an already crowded thread I wont repost it. All US Military personnel are subject to the UCMJ. So then the question becomes is it a lawful order and I addressed that too. As for CO status,

A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles.

HOW TO APPLY
In general, once a man gets a notice that he has been found qualified for military service, he has the opportunity to make a claim for classification as a conscientious objector (CO). A registrant making a claim for Conscientious Objection is required to appear before his local board to explain his beliefs.

He may provide written documentation or include personal appearances by people he knows who can attest to his claims. His written statement might explain:

how he arrived at his beliefs; and

the influence his beliefs have had on how he lives his life.

The local board will decide whether to grant or deny a CO classification based on the evidence a registrant has presented.

A man may appeal a Local Board's decision to a Selective Service District Appeal Board. If the Appeal Board also denies his claim, but the vote is not unanimous, he may further appeal the decision to the National Appeal Board. See also Classifications.

WHO QUALIFIES?
Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.


So lets say that Sgt. Smith went to Iraq on one tour then decided that becuse he didn't like Iraq but had two years left on his enlistment wanted to claim CO status. He would not be able to qualify for CO status because his lifestyle before the claim did not reflect his current one. Further, Sgt. Smith in full knowledge of the hazards involved in the US Military and taking the oath freely and not claiming CO status further expempts him from this. Generally CO Status is reserved as a pre-draft status or on religious grounds.

 

[jschuck12001]

lock him up why? because of his moral beliefs???? I know your gonna say then why did he join the military...because he probably believed the line off bullshit he was told by the recruiter that it was easy money for college. your statement shows the intolerance and ignorant mentality of republican warhawk views.

Look, I'm not for war and I am a dem but if he is 21 then that means he joined the military when we were at war already and he should have known what he was getting himself into. It is a commitment and he needs to follow through.

 

[sealybobo]

Look, I'm not for war and I am a dem but if he is 21 then that means he joined the military when we were at war already and he should have known what he was getting himself into. It is a commitment and he needs to follow through.

A lot of brave young men and women signed up to fight Al Queda and instead were shifted off to Iraq. Bush lied us into Iraq. I would have no problem going AWOL on Bush. He is not my president. In fact, he wasn't even elected. He stole 2 elections.

How?

1. Obstructing Voter-Registration Drives

2. Demanding "Perfect Matches"

Under the Help America Vote Act, some states now reject first-time registrants whose data does not correspond to information in other government databases. Spurred by HAVA, almost every state must now attempt to make some kind of match — and four states, including the swing states of Iowa and Florida, require what is known as a "perfect match." Under this rigid framework, new registrants can lose the right to vote if the information on their voter-registration forms — Social Security number, street address and precisely spelled name, right down to a hyphen — fails to exactly match data listed in other government records.

3. Purging Legitimate Voters From the Rolls

The Help America Vote Act doesn't just disenfranchise new registrants; it also targets veteran voters. In the past, bipartisan county election boards maintained voter records. But HAVA requires that records be centralized, computerized and maintained by secretaries of state — partisan officials — who are empowered to purge the rolls of any voter they deem ineligible. Ironically, the new rules imitate the centralized system in Florida — the same corrupt operation that inspired passage of HAVA in the first place. Prior to the 2000 election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris and her predecessor, both Republicans, tried to purge 57,000 voters, most of them African-Americans, because their names resembled those of persons convicted of a crime. The state eventually acknowledged that the purges were improper — two years after the election.

4. Requiring Unnecessary Voter ID's

Even if voters run the gauntlet of the new registration laws, they can still be blocked at the polling station. In an incident last May, an election official in Indiana denied ballots to 10 nuns seeking to vote in the Democratic primary because their driver's licenses or passports had expired.
5. Rejecting "Spoiled" Ballots

Even intrepid voters who manage to cast a ballot may still find their vote discounted. In 2004, election officials discarded at least 1 million votes nationwide after classifying them as "spoiled" because blank spaces, stray marks or tears made them indecipherable to voting machines. The losses hit hardest among minorities in low-income precincts, who are often forced to vote on antiquated machines.