We Say No - AAWFrance .org

The New Face of Protest?

2006-10-20T14:05:00.000-07:00

The New Face of Protest?

by Karen Houppert
The Nation
[from the March 28, 2005 issue]

On a Sunday afternoon in February a young man made a plea to a room full of 400 antiwar activists who had gathered in St. Louis for three days of strategizing on how to end the war in Iraq. "I'm probably the most experienced activist in my organization and I've been an activist for one year," 25-year-old Michael Hoffman said, "so we need your help with logistics." In return, he promised that his group would serve as a shield. "When there are massive protests, we will be out front. We will say that you are doing everything you can to support the troops by demanding that this war is ended, and ended now, so that the troops are brought home and cared for when they return."

His speech was short, but it was one of the few that brought whoops, cheers and a standing ovation from the crowd of United for Peace and Justice delegates, a national coalition of more than 1,000 antiwar groups. As he left the dais and made his way through the crowd, he seemed surprised by the reaction he got--indeed, surprised to find himself in this role of war resister.

Until the summer of 2003, Michael Hoffman was a US Marine with the Tenth Regiment. Hoffman, who says he believed from the beginning that this was a war for oil, had been slated to get out of the service before his unit shipped out to Kuwait in February 2003. But two days before Hoffman's time was up, his sergeant called him to let him know that the Secretary of the Navy had instituted "stop loss," which meant that those soldiers deemed necessary to the war could not get out of the service when promised; Hoffman would be going to Iraq instead of home to Allentown, Pennsylvania. What Hoffman saw when his unit went into Iraq on March 20 only hardened his opposition to the war. "Seeing the civilian casualties and the horrible things that were done and the destruction we laid on that country, it seemed pretty clear to me that we never had the Iraqis' best interests in mind," he says.

Today, Hoffman is a co-founder of the fledgling organization Iraq Veterans Against the War and also a centerpiece of the peace movement's emerging strategy. Antiwar activists are determined to make the military a major pillar of the movement, both by homing in on one of the war effort's weak spots--the military's faltering campaign to recruit new soldiers--and by embracing antiwar troops. Perhaps recalling the late but powerful entrance of the voices of Vietnam vets in the protests of that era--like, say, the youthful Lieut. John Kerry, who once spoke eloquently about what he saw in Vietnam--today's 1960s-activist-stacked peace movement hopes to be more strategic about the military's role.

It is an alliance rich with promise. Part of the challenge for this peace movement is persuading Americans that attacking the war is not the same thing as attacking the troops. The Vietnam-era mythology of antiwar activists spitting on soldiers is still alive and well in the American psyche (no matter how many times its veracity has been called into question). Putting veterans on the front lines of the peace movement subverts this image. At the same time, this tactic has drawbacks--among them is that it risks reinforcing the notion that civilian opposition to war is somehow less legitimate.

For now, buoyed by news reports of dissent in the ranks, antiwar leaders are convinced that soldiers make valuable allies. "They have a credibility in this conversation that allows them to reach more people and to take on some of the arguments of the conservatives in a more persuasive way," says Charley Richardson, one of the co-founders of Military Families Speak Out and the father of a soldier who served in Iraq. Richardson and his wife, Nancy Lessin, have seen MFSO grow from 200 families in 2003 to more than 2,000 families today. "More soldiers and spouses are speaking out today," says Lessin, who believes that even more harbor antiwar sentiment but stay quiet. Noting that the organization has seen a membership shift--it used to be predominantly parents of soldiers; now more wives of soldiers have joined--Lessin is encouraged: "That is significant because that's where the code of silence is greatest, on military bases, and that's where breaking the code is more difficult."

Huge numbers? No. But a symbolic presence can be powerful--letting others who feel similarly know that it's OK to speak out. And putting military families and soldiers up front can shift public opinion, organizers say.

"Part of the problem is that no one, from the next-door neighbor to the politicians in Congress, wants to be seen as not supporting the troops," says Lessin. "Our role is to change that construct, to say that real support of the troops right now--when they have been sent off to fight and die in a war based on lies--is to fight against a war that never had to happen. We say, 'We need you to support the troops this way.'" Getting vets and military family members involved is thus critical. "This group of people gives us permission to speak out against the war."

Helping this effort along are some recent, highly visible signs of disgruntled troops. There is Specialist Thomas Wilson, the soldier who, during a feel-good town meeting in Kuwait, got so much press when he dared to question Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as to why soldiers were being forced to "dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal" to up-armor their vehicles instead of getting proper protective equipment from the Army. Then there were the twenty-three members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company in Iraq who mutinied, refusing to drive their trucks on what they clearly considered a suicide mission. Further, peace activists have been encouraged by a spate of well-publicized lawsuits from both enlisted soldiers and officers.

The suits draw attention to what John Kerry dubbed a "back-door draft," in which tens of thousands of veterans who had gotten out of the service, active-duty soldiers who believed they had completed their tours in Iraq, and officers who put in for separation or retirement have been told to think again. (One 56-year-old Californian, who served three tours in Vietnam before getting out of the service decades ago, was among those recently ordered to report for duty.) While the Pentagon has reminded the public that we are at war, lawyers for some reluctant soldiers contend otherwise. In cases filed in the past few months, they argue that the United States is engaged in "nation building" and "putting down the Iraqi insurgency"--two activities not covered under President Bush's declaration of a "state of emergency" on September 14, 2001. Since Congress never formally declared war against Iraq, they claim, Bush does not have the power to ignore the contractual agreements soldiers sign upon enlisting. (And indeed, Bush reassured the nation on May 2, 2003, from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, that the war in Iraq was over and had been won by US forces: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.")

In addition to fighting in the courts, war opponents have also tried to build bridges with progressives inside the military community. "We affirm that defending your country and supporting your troops does not mean suppressing your conscience," the Civic Soldier Forum announces in a soon-to-be-released ad for military publications. The forum, a national organization of self-described "progressives who are also patriots," comprises military analysts, active-duty troops, civilians and veterans.

At the grassroots level, progressives are also working to involve soldiers. For example, in Fayetteville, North Carolina, home of one of the Army's largest posts (Fort Bragg) as well as an Air Force base (Pope AFB), the Quakers are joining up with Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out (MFSO), Veterans for Peace, Gold Star Families for Peace and September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows to organize a large antiwar demonstration on March 19. They are expecting anywhere from 4,000 to 10,000 protesters.

Meanwhile, in Vermont, activists are taking a completely different tack. Here, in a state with no active-duty military bases but a number of National Guard soldiers, fifty towns passed a resolution on March 1 to end the war. "This war is being perpetrated in our names with our tax dollars," says Sherry Prindall, mother of a National Guard soldier deployed to Iraq. Speaking in radio commercials broadcast across the state, she has been urging Vermonters to consider the war a local issue. Though organizers admit their resolutions are unlikely to end the war, they see this as a significant educational effort. "The basic goal of the whole exercise is to initiate a conversation in Vermont," says Ben Scotch, one of those spearheading the campaign. "We want to bring the discussion outside of the peace movement to engage people in the fire departments and schools and the veterans of foreign wars groups--the whole community."

The effort dovetails nicely with the rest of the peace movement's counterrecruiting efforts, which are newly focused on the National Guard. "This is just one part of the larger struggle to deny the government the troops it needs to fight the war," explains MFSO's Richardson. Banding together with the American Friends Service Committee, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace and United for Peace and Justice, MFSO intends to bring the war home by exposing the local impact of the war on soldiers, families, communities and states through a focus on the National Guard. Because as many as 50 percent of some states' National Guard troops are deployed at any given time, residents are left without the state-based emergency response teams they may need. "This is an issue that state legislatures can and must take on," insists Richardson. Not only do antiwar activists hope to expose this vulnerability and propel more states to adopt resolutions like Vermont's; they are ultimately going for a trickle-up effect. If grassroots activists can persuade a city councilor to support their cause, and then a state legislator, eventually members of Congress might feel they have a supportive base for taking a stand. To that end, peace activists are tying the cost of the war to local issues. Libraries and schools are underfunded, the argument goes, because money is going instead to fund military adventures. "We have to say that Bush's budgets are immoral and we are looking for moral ways to use our money," says Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, an organization of women for peace.

Meanwhile, college students are protesting the presence of recruiters on their campuses, and parents of young people are beginning to speak out against the military's hunt for high schoolers. Cindy Sheehan, a California resident whose 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed two weeks after he arrived in Iraq in April 2004, says she gets furious when recruiters call the house asking to speak to her three younger kids. "They get the list from the schools," she says, referring to a little-known clause of the No Child Left Behind Act that requires public schools to provide recruiters with students' names, addresses and home phone numbers--or lose federal funds. "I tell the recruiters that sacrificing my oldest son for a lie is already way too much and they're not getting any of my other kids!"

Sheehan is a perfect example of the kind of folks peace activists insist are part of a silent majority: She opposed the war but was disinclined to speak out. "I was stunned and dismayed when the United States invaded Iraq," Sheehan says. "I didn't agree with it. I didn't think it was right, but I never protested until after Casey was killed." She pauses and steels herself for what feels like the hundredth brutal mea culpa: "And I am very sorry I didn't." Taking to heart the old union slogan "Don't mourn, organize," Sheehan is clearly deeply immersed in both. Along with dozens of other families who lost soldiers in the war, she formed a new organization, Gold Star Families for Peace, and has made it her penance to share the details of her own experience. "Now I am doing anything I can to shorten this war and save other families the pain we're going through," she says.

Her voice and those of other military families are being welcomed in the peace movement. And more soldiers themselves are slowly creeping out of the woodwork. But getting huge numbers of troops involved may be a long shot. There is tremendous peer pressure in the military community--the Defense Department calls it "bonding" and considers it the cornerstone of military training--and soldiers who are vocal about their opposition to the war face considerable obstacles. Not only may their peers shun them, but the Army may go after them.

The Civic Soldier Forum runs ads in various military publications. One that is forthcoming in The Stars and Stripes raises a provocative question: "Who says that those who defend democracy cannot practice it?" Eloquently posed, the question is not merely rhetorical. There are so many rules governing soldiers' political lives that most seem to shy away from all activism for fear of breaking one. (Regulations even specify the size of bumper stickers allowed on their cars.) Officially, members of the armed services can participate in protests as long as they are not in uniform, don't divulge military secrets and don't appear to be speaking for the military. "Unofficially, your supervisors can give you every single horrible detail they can find," says Hoffman, the Iraq veteran who spoke at the St. Louis antiwar event. "In Iraq, they can put you on every dangerous mission they need to staff."

Lou Plummer, an Army veteran whose son Drew was home on leave from the Navy the day the Iraq War started, says his son paid a big price for speaking his mind. Lou brought Drew to a peace vigil that day in Fayetteville. When an AP reporter interviewed Lou and then turned to Drew and asked what he thought, the young man told him he thought the war was about oil. "He didn't speak to any other reporters. He is not an activist. He just answered the question from his heart," Lou recalls. Days after Drew's comments ran in the press, when he reported for duty at the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, he was charged with violating Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The charge was disloyalty. When Drew was hauled before his superiors, his father explains, he "was asked if he sympathized with the enemy and said 'No.' He was asked if he planned to sabotage the ship and said 'No.' He was asked if he was sorry for what he said to that reporter and he said 'No.' So he was convicted of disloyalty and demoted."

Hoffman insists this isn't uncommon. "Lots of guys who speak out then get railroaded into an Article 15 hearing because they're offered a choice between that and a court-martial," says Hoffman. Under an Article 15 hearing, soldiers forgo legal representation and a trial, instead agreeing to let their commander make the call through a less formal administrative hearing. "And basically, you're guilty until proven innocent," says Hoffman.

While the antiwar movement embraces soldiers who brave such hostility to express their qualms about the war, dissenting military voices do not always share all of the peace movement's goals and priorities. As a result, these alliances have the potential to backfire. For example, Specialist Wilson's comment to Rumsfeld about the lack of armored vehicles was the complaint heard round the world. But if it gets invoked as justification for increased military spending, the cheers may fade. Or if the complaints of military families who lament the current operational tempo that has their spouses deployed more than they're home spur a military buildup, they may find themselves at odds with the larger peace movement. Indeed, progressives may be putting the military out front for the same reasons that the Democrats are now determined to put religion out front--and both "projects" raise the same serious questions: Is this capitulating to the political climate rather than contesting the very premise that says the God-fearing make the best leaders, or the khaki-clad soldiers the truest patriots? And when some of those "true patriots" are the perpetrators of crimes, like those committed at Abu Ghraib, will the peace movement's promilitary stance inhibit strong criticism?

Ultimately, there is a danger that the soldier's perspective, so crucial to the peace movement now, may prove problematic to the larger progressive movement that activists hope this will spawn. After all, for many soldiers this is a one-platform plank, making their immediate asset their long-term flaw. "So many of the other activists at this United for Peace and Justice convention can be written off by Americans as crazy pinko commie lefties," Hoffman told me privately, after he had addressed the larger assembly of peace activists in the St. Louis convention hall. "But we're the vets who've been there and fought, and it seems it's hard for us to be dismissed. We've been to Iraq. We've seen it. We know it's wrong. We have to end it." He shrugs and raises his hands, palms up, as if he holds a tidy package. "It's very simple. There's not a lot of other issues we're talking about."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050328&s=houppert

Petition to the Canadian Government to give sanctuary to US war objectors

2006-10-18T14:21:00.000-07:00

Petition to the Canadian Government to give sanctuary to US war objectors

To: Canadian Government
During the period of 1965-1973 more than 50,000 draft-age Americans made their way to Canada, refusing to participate in an immoral war. At the time, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said: "Those who make the conscientious judgment that they must not participate in this war... have my complete sympathy, and indeed our political approach has been to give them access to Canada. Canada should be a refuge from militarism."

Thirty years later, Canada is faced with the same moral choice – to give refuge to those who refuse to be accomplices in the US-led war on Iraq which many legal opinions have deemed illegal under international law.

There are currently at least two young people who have made their way to Canada in objection to the US government’s war on Iraq. Jeremy Hinzman was a soldier in the 82nd Airborne Division. He and his family arrived in Toronto in January 2004 and are currently seeking refugee status. Brandon Hughey, a 19-year-old American soldier, arrived in St. Catharines two months later and is also seeking refugee status.

Regardless of the technical decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board, we believe Canada should not punish US war objectors for exercising their conscience and refusing to fight. If they are returned to the United States, they face incarceration and possibly even the death penalty. Canada must not facilitate the persecution of American war objectors by returning them to the United States.

The majority of Canadians did not support this war. The Canadian government did not support this war.

We call on the Canadian government to demonstrate its commitment to international law and the treaties to which it is a signatory, by making provision for US war objectors to have sanctuary in this country.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned

View Current Signatures

The War Resisters Support Campaign Petition to Canadian Government was created by War Resisters Support Campaign and written by Michelle Robidoux. This petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form.

Send this to a friend

Canada Denies Refugee Status for Jeremy Hinzman

2006-10-18T14:20:00.000-07:00

Canada Denies Refugee Status for Jeremy Hinzman, U.S. Deserte

Los Angeles Times
25 March, 2005

TORONTO - A U.S. soldier who deserted because he opposed the war in Iraq does not qualify as a refugee and would not face excessive punishment if sent home, Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board said Thursday.

Jeremy Hinzman, 26, was the first of several U.S. deserters to file asylum claims in Canada. He fled from the 82nd Airborne Division two years ago.

Hinzman maintained that the U.S.-led war in Iraq was illegal and that he feared he would have to commit atrocities if he was sent there. His case was undercut by the refugee board's refusal to consider the legality of the war.

The ruling said Hinzman's reasons for refusing to fight in Iraq were "inherently contradictory" because he was willing to serve in a noncombat role.

"Surely an intelligent young man like Mr. Hinzman, who believed the war in Iraq to be illegal, unjust and waged for economic reasons, would be unwilling to participate in any capacity, whether combatant or noncombatant," the refugee board said.

"The Federal Court clearly sets out that one cannot be a selective conscientious objector."

The ruling also noted that Hinzman was not opposed to war in general, given that he supported U.S. actions in Afghanistan.

The refugee board said Hinzman had not given enough evidence to indicate that he would be denied due process if sent back to the United States or face especially harsh treatment because he was a deserter.

Hinzman's lawyer immediately said he would appeal the decision to the federal courts.

The soldier, who could face five years in prison if he is returned to the United States, will be allowed to remain in Canada during the appeal. The tribunal also rejected the asylum claims of Hinzman's wife and young son.

Hinzman, who served in a noncombat role in Afghanistan, said he decided to leave after military officers ignored his requests to be registered as a conscientious objector.

The soldier, born in Rapid City, S.D., enlisted in 2000 to get college funds. In a December refugee hearing, he said he refused to go to Iraq because he was "unwilling to kill babies."

The U.S. Army has said a decision on whether to court-martial Hinzman or grant him an administrative discharge could be reached only after he returned. His appeals could take several years.

It is believed that about 100 U.S. soldiers have deserted and gone to Canada since the start of the Iraq war two years ago.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-refugee25mar25,1,2659674.story

Hinzman to appeal Refugee Board decision

The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) today rejected U.S. war resister Jeremy Hinzman's claim for refugee status in Canada. Hinzman and his lawyer, Jeffry House, immediately announced that they would appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Canada. "Jeremy has a very strong refugee claim. Unfortunately the IRB refused to allow him to present a crucial part of his case: the illegality of the US invasion of Iraq," said House. "We are confident that the Federal Court will correct this and overrule the IRB decision."

Speaking on behalf of the War Resisters Support Campaign, Lee Zaslofsky expressed disappointment at the decision. "Of course we are disappointed. The technicalities of the refugee process were allowed to obscure the justice of Jeremy's case. But we will continue to campaign to get the Government of Canada to open our doors to all U.S. Iraq War resisters."

The War Resisters Support Campaign, which was launched in early 2003, took the position from the beginning that U.S. war resisters should not be sent back to face incarceration or even a possible death sentence for refusing to participate in an illegal war. "Canada must not become an enforcement arm of the U.S. military, handing over to certain punishment courageous young men whose only offense was to follow Canada's own example," said Carolyn Egan, a Campaign spokesperson.

Hinzman is the first of seven US war resisters who have applied for refugee status in Canada. The others are still waiting for their hearings to be scheduled. "Canadian law requires that each refugee claim be considered on its own merits." said House. "We will pursue the other claims every bit as vigorously as Jeremy's claim."

"It seems like the Martin Government is dithering over what to do about US war resisters who come to Canada. But this issue will not just go away, and Mr. Martin should face up to the need to provide sanctuary to them. It is simply wrong to leave them in limbo, facing either jail terms or long term uncertainty. Pierre Trudeau was proud to offer access to Canada as a "refuge from militarism" during the Vietnam War - Paul Martin should do likewise for those who cannot in good conscience take part in the Iraq War," said Zaslofsky.

For further information:
WAR RESISTERS SUPPORT CAMPAIGN
Lee Zaslofsky 416 598 1222 or 416 369 0864
Carolyn Egan 416 806 7985
resisters@sympatico.ca -- 416 598 1222

Refusing to Kill

George Bush, When are you going to tell the truth to the people of the United States?

2006-10-18T14:19:00.001-07:00

George Bush, When are you going to tell the truth to the people of the United States?

To George W. Bush:

When are you going to tell the truth to the people of the United States?

Why don't you tell them why you want to be in Iraq so bad?

I was there for six months and I did not see the first weapon of mass destruction. I did receive orders from the company commander to shoot children if they threw small rocks at us and that was when I figured out that the entire thing was way over the line.

Over 1200 soldiers have died in Iraq so that you can have a couple billion more dollars, that should make you feel very good about yourself.

The soldiers that have died for this sham that you have put over on the American people are so much more deserving than that. You are not worth the dust off of their boots.

If you truly had respect for the military and the people that serve then you would not continue to kill them in your war.

I joined the Army to protect my country and not to be a mercenary for a political despot.

If you wish to put me in prison because of my views then you should make room for about 75% of the military.

And while you are at make some room for yourself and about half of your administration. You are responsible for what happened at Abu Gharaib and you are shirking your responsibility.

The commander in chief is not above the UCMJ, as you would like to believe.

I want to fulfill my contract that says I joined the Army to protect my country against all enemies foreign and domestic, and as far as I am concerned you are a domestic enemy of the United States.

You care nothing for this country; you just care about the profits that are to made from the oil in Iraq. That much is evident to me from the way the contracts were passed out to Halliburton and KBR. It must be nice to have the deck stacked in your favor by the president of the USA.

Since your are raising the debt ceiling of America so that we can pay the bills that you have run up, why don't you forgive the debts of every one in the armed forces since they are the ones that are making it possible for you to make billions from the oil from Iraq.

Sincerely,
Sgt.Kevin M, Benderman
Ft. Stewart, GA

http://www.traveling-soldier.org/1.05.domestic.php

Deserters: We Won't Go to Iraq

2006-10-18T14:19:00.000-07:00

Deserters: We Won't Go to Iraq

Pentagon admits that more than 5,500 servicemen have deserted

CBSNews.com
December 8, 2004

The Pentagon says more than 5,500 servicemen have deserted since the war started in Iraq.

60 Minutes Wednesday found several of these deserters who left the Army or Marine Corps rather than go to Iraq. Like a generation of deserters before them, they fled to Canada.

What do these men, who have violated orders and oaths, have to say for themselves? They told Correspondent Scott Pelley that conscience, not cowardice, made them American deserters.

"I was a warrior. You know? I always have been. I've always felt that way - that if there are people who can't defend themselves, it's my responsibility to do that," says Pfc. Dan Felushko, 24.

It was Felushko's responsibility to ship out with the Marines to Kuwait in Jan. 2003 to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Instead, he slipped out of Camp Pendleton, Calif., and deployed himself to Canada.

"I didn't want, you know, 'Died deluded in Iraq' over my gravestone," says Felushko. "If I'd gone, personally, because of the things that I believed, it would have felt wrong. Because I saw it as wrong, if I died there or killed somebody there, that would have been more wrong."

He told Pelley it wasn't fighting that bothered him. In fact, he says he started basic training just weeks after al Qaeda attacked New York and Washington - and he was prepared to get even for Sept. 11 in Afghanistan.

But Felushko says he didn't see a connection between the attack on America and Saddam Hussein.

"(What) it basically comes down to, is it my right to choose between what I think is right and what I think is wrong?" asks Felushko. "And nobody should make me sign away my ability to choose between right and wrong."

But Felushko had signed a contract to be with the U.S. Marine Corps. "It's a devil's contract if you look at it that way," he says.

How does he feel about being in Toronto while other Marines are dying in Fallujah, Najaf and Ramadi?

"It makes me struggle with doubt, you know, about my decision," says Felushko.

What does he say to the families of the American troops who have died in Iraq?

"I honor their dead. Maybe they think that my presence dishonors their dead. But they made a choice the same as I made a choice," says Felushko. "My big problem is that, if they made that choice for anything other than they believed in it, then that's wrong. Right? And the government has to be held responsible for those deaths, because they didn't give them an option."

Felushko's father is Canadian, so he has dual citizenship, and he can legally stay in Canada. But it's not that easy for other American deserters.

Canadian law has changed since the Vietnam era. Back then, an estimated 55,000 Americans deserted to Canada or dodged the draft. And in those days, Canada simply welcomed them.

But today's American deserters, such as Brandon Hughey, will need to convince a Canadian immigration board that they are refugees.

Hughey volunteered for the Army to get money for college. He graduated from high school in San Angelo, Texas, just two months after the president declared war in Iraq.

What did he think about the case for going to war? "I felt it was necessary if they did have these weapons, and they could end up in our cities and threaten our safety," says Hughey. "I was supportive. At first, I didn't think to question it."

He says at first, he was willing to die "to make America safe." And while Hughey was in basic training, he didn't get much news. But when he left basic training, he started following the latest information from Iraq.

"I found out, basically, that they found no weapons of mass destruction. They were beginning to come out and say it's not likely that we will find any - and the claim that they made about ties to al Qaeda was coming up short, to say the least," says Hughey. "It made me angry, because I felt our lives were being thrown away as soldiers, basically."

When Hughey got orders for Iraq, he searched the Internet and found Vietnam era war resisters willing to show him the way north. In fact, they were willing to drive him there, and a Canadian television news camera went along.

Hughey had an invitation to stay with a Quaker couple that helped Americans avoid the draft during Vietnam. From Fort Hood, Texas, to St. Catherine's in Ontario, Canada, Hughey crossed the border, duty free.

Pelley read letters about Hughey's desertion that were sent to the editor of a San Antonio newspaper.

"It makes me sad to know that there's that much hate in the country," says Hughey. "Before I joined the Army, I would have thought the same way. Anyone who said no to a war, I would have thought them a traitor and a coward. So, in that essence, I'm thankful for this experience, because it has opened my eyes and it has taught me not to take things on the surface."

However, he adds: "I have to say that my image of my country always being the good guy, and always fighting for just causes, has been shattered."

Hughey, and other deserters, will be represented before the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board by Toronto lawyer Jeffry House. His clients will have to prove that, if they are returned to the United States, they wouldn't just be prosecuted for what they did -- they would be also be persecuted. How will House make that claim?

"People should have a right to say, 'I'm not fighting in that war. That's an illegal war. There's illegal stuff going on the ground. I'm not going,'" says House. "And anyone who says soldiers should go to jail if they don't fight in an illegal war is persecuting them."

And it's something House has experience with. In 1969, he graduated from the University of Wisconsin, got drafted, and spent the rest of his life in Canada.

House's legal strategy will focus on his contention that President Bush is not complying with international law. But how will he defend volunteers who signed a contract?

"The United States is supposed to comply with treaty obligations like the U.N. charter, but they don't," says House. "When the president isn't complying with the Geneva Accords or with the U.N. charter, are we saying, 'Only the soldier who signed up when he was 17 - that guy has to strictly comply with contract? The president, he doesn't have to?' I don't think so. I don't think that is fair."

The first deserter to face the Canadian refugee board is likely to be Spc. Jeremy Hinzman of Rapid City, S.D. He joined the military in Jan. 2001, and was a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne.

He wanted a career in the military, but over time, he decided he couldn' t take a life. "I was walking to chow hall with my unit, and we were yelling, 'Train to kill, kill we will,' over and over again," recalls Hinzman. "I kind of snuck a peek around me and saw all my colleagues getting red in the face and hoarse yelling - and at that point a light went off in my head and I said, 'You know, I made the wrong career decision.'"

But Hinzman said he didn't want to get out of the Army: "I had signed a contract for four years. I was totally willing to fulfill it. Just not in combat arms jobs."

While at Fort Bragg, Hinzman says he filled out the forms for conscientious objector status, which would let him stay in the Army in a non-combat job.

While he waited for a decision, he went to Afghanistan and worked in a kitchen. But later, the Army told him he didn't qualify as a conscientious objector, and he was ordered to fight in Iraq.

Hinzman decided to take his family to Canada, where he's been living off savings accumulated while he was in the military.

Wasn't he supposed to follow orders? "I was told in basic training that, if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it," says Hinzman. "And I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do."

"But you can't have an Army of free-thinkers," says Pelley. "You wouldn't have an Army."

"No, you wouldn't. I think there are times when militaries or countries act in a collectively wrong way," says Hinzman. "I mean, the obvious example was during World War II. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a really bad guy. I mean, he ranks up there with the bad ones. But was he a threat to the United States?

Still, isn't it worth fighting to free the people of Iraq? "Whether a country lives under freedom or tyranny or whatever else, that's the collective responsibility of the people of that country," says Hinzman.

Hinzman and the other American deserters have become celebrities of sorts in the Canadian anti-war movement.

Only a few of the reported 5,500 deserters are in Canada, but House says he's getting more calls from nervous soldiers all the time.

Wouldn't the right and honorable thing for deserters to do be to go back to the United States, and turn themselves in to the Army?

"Why would that be honorable?" asks House. "(Deserters signed a contract) to defend the Constitution of the United States, not take part in offensive, pre-emptive wars. I don't think you should be punished for doing the right thing. What benefit is there to being a martyr? I don't see any."

Hinzman began his hearing before the Canadian Immigration and Refugee board last Monday. But there's no telling when he'll find out if he'll be allowed to stay in Canada - or be sent back to the United States to face the consequences.

The maximum penalty for deserting in wartime is death. But it's more typical for a soldier to draw a sentence of five years or less for deserting in wartime.

http://www.refusingtokill.net/USGulfWar2/5500USdeserters.htm

"This war is about money"

2006-10-18T14:18:00.000-07:00

This war is about money.

by a soldier in Iraq
http://www.traveling-soldier.org/1.05.money.php

"This war is about money. The money is only making the rich man richer."

I am a manipulated stooge who sold his soul to exploit the ignorant with the proud lies our own leaders.

I am told on a regular basis "The Army is not like it used to be." Most of the lifers think that the military lacks discipline and blame the new "Nintendo generation" soldiers for the weakness.

However, I think a hard look should be given at the uses of America's advanced military in the modern era. Due to the operations the military has been tasked in the last forty years, the nobility of the professional soldier has been destroyed.

From Vietnam to Iraq the Armed Forces has been a chess piece in a game for money and power by elite Americans. Back in the world wars the military represented every citizen's will. Today the people are duped with lies and phony values to support imperial progress.

Weapons of mass destruction, links to the two towers tragedy, and the ousting of an oppressive dictatorship are all bait for a revenge hungry over-patriotic American.

I doubt that the men in power are as incompetent as the world imagines. For that reason I dismiss the apparent failures in Iraq as not the true goals of this war. After these errors are eliminated you are left with the truth behind the media smoke screens.

This war is about money.

Most people believe that dollars are being handed over to Iraq to rebuild their country on the backs of the American tax payers and under the protection of US troops.

However, the money never sees Iraq. It leaves your wallet and goes through the system in DC and ends up in a corporation with the sizeable government contract. Sure the product is a new road, a school house or AK-47s for the Iraqi National Guard, but the money is only making a rich man richer.

Even the soldiers are brain washed into hating the "rag heads".

I have overheard soldiers telling racist jokes like "Why do Iraqis smell so bad? So blind people can hate them too." It becomes easy to hate the Arab people. We don't understand their culture, their religion and their language. They are a poor people with a lesser quality of lifestyle and standard of living. The average soldier can not relate to living without electricity, plumbing, and toilet paper.

If we see them as inferior it makes it easier to kill them. Just as one might kill a dog that digs through his trash. As a soldier gets into combat situations the prejudice grows as they blame every Middle-Easterner for the conflict.

The Joes hate Iraqis because the command hypes about being in Iraqi to stabilize a democracy and fight terrorists on their own ground. The leadership never explains the fact that a majority of Iraqis don't want a republic that is just a branch of the Western materialistic culture and that they see America as a tyrant equal to the fallen Saddam's Baath Party.

Most soldiers mistake the word insurgent to mean a person that is inserted. As if we are fighting men from other countries than Iraq. When, insurgent means rebel.

The common GI won't investigate why the insurgent will sacrifice himself, because most soldiers would never do the same. But somewhere in the back of the GI's mind he has a sense that what he is doing here is wrong. It gives him doubt and discourages his morale.

The lifers hold on to the lies of the system because the truth would destroy the core of their beliefs. The fact that the stars and bars is only an illusion for the real power behind the throne could ruin their psyche and crash their egos. They will never let go of their pride and use it as an excuse to cover their fear.

A war backed by our nation's cowards. What else would a preemptive strike be good for. Americans get so afraid they will kill in cold blood and thump their chests to claim it for a good cause.

History is written by the victors and might makes right. After all is said and done it will go down that way in the books. We will kill communists, drug dealers and terrorists. Next will be homosexuals and atheists. Then full circle back to Jews and Blacks. Fear and prejudice is destructive and we dominate using it. Every country folds to American policies afraid their homes will become the next Baghdad.

And, our leaders use media to force the United States people into anxiety using colored threat levels, video of violence, and worse case scenarios presented as emergency updates. We even had Colin Powell lie to the world's most powerful council, the U.N., about Iraq's malicious intent with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. America intimidates the world while calling the insurgent freedom fighters terrorists.

So Americans can't let go of their fear. Like it is a security blanket from a childhood memory. Just as most people can't relax their guard, in Nam lifers couldn't relate to the men that was turned on to marijuana.

To let your mind and body go and become open to the chaos of the world is impossible for a person who lives in constant fear of the unknown truth. Drug usage isn't as much of a problem here in Iraq amongst the soldiers, yet. However with a draft, the inactive reserve and more stop-loss it won't be long before more soldiers discover the potency of Arab hashish and opium based narcotics.

There will be a division between lifers and the heads again. It has already started with the stop-lossed soldier obviously not wanting to be in service any longer. Many of them get court marshaled or chaptered out with dishonorables saving the military from paying an already deserved Collage GI Bill and other veterans benefits.

As war here in the middle-east gets more violent the soldiers will become less afraid of punishment. Prison will become a more sane option than trying to take Fallujah for the fourth time.

Most the soldiers I have talked to have joined for selfish reasons. They wanted money for collage, travel the world, get out of a dead end, avoid going to prison, or had no direction in life.

The boys who joined up to defend the red white and blue are few and far between. I met some soldiers that were motivated by September 11th, but not many. It is a need in today's society to find alternate advantages to enlist, and when kids learn what they really signed themselves up for it is a rude awakening. Many soldiers are counting down to their last day in the military from the first few hours at basic training.

For all these reasons, whether the G.I.s are conscious of it or not, the military personal have a decreased motivation and intensity.

We fight for lies, are alienated by our chain of command and are only trying to ride out the clock until we can finish our contracts without losing what we have worked for or seeing the inside of a prison cell.

The Armed Forces will never have a loyal troop base until its goals change. If there was something worth fighting for, something the common man can gain, rather than just being underpaid mercenaries for some elitist, then the soldiers would have more encouragement to join in work hard.

I myself find it difficult to have discipline in an Army full of ass-kissing lying hypocrites who enforce a wicked US policy with a violent war I disagree with.

I serve in shame,
A soldier in Iraq
Name withheld

Sgt. Camilo Mejia: First Iraqi War Veteran to Refuse Further Military Service

2006-10-18T14:16:00.000-07:00

Sgt. Camilo Mejia: First Iraqi War Veteran to Refuse Further Military Service

Citizen Soldier
http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS07-Camilo.html

"...the fear of dying has the power to turn soldiers into real killing machines. In a combat environment it becomes almost impossible for us to consider things like acting strictly in self defense or using just enough force to stop an attack."

Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, 28, of Miami, Florida joined the Army in 1995 as a way to get college assistance and in search of new experiences. Following a three-year hitch with the Regular Army, he joined the Florida National Guard partly because he was promised tuition assistance at Florida's state universities. Mejia, a Nicaraguan citizen, had moved permanently to the US with his mother when he was eighteen years old. He is a permanent resident who holds a "green card."

He was entering his final semester of college in January 2003 when his unit was ordered activated. His unit, C Company, 1-124 INF of the 53d Infantry Brigade was sent to Ft. Stewart, GA for pre-mobilization combat training. While at Ft. Stewart Mejia, who was a squad leader, noted that every reservist "passed" every test, even when their performance was deficient.

In Camilo's words: "The training at Ft. Stewart was merely intended to make our unit deployable. A soldier is not supposed to deploy if he or she doesn't pass a physical exam. I knew a soldier whose hearing had been impaired after many years' service in the artillery. But this didn't matter; they checked the 'pass' box for hearing on his medical form. Another requirement was that we qualify with our rifles. After several attempts at the firing range, many soldiers still couldn't qualify but they were all judged to be qualifed. Training cadres would initially fail a few soldiers and then change this to a passing score. Not a single soldier ever had to go back to the range for testing. Every soldier passed every test the same day they were tested."

During a battalion parade, our commander, a Lieutenant Colonel, told us that he was not going to return to Florida without a Combat Infantry Badge, a medal awarded only to infantrymen who had been under direct enemy fire."

After a few weeks of training, Camilo's unit was flown to a Middle Eastern country they were told not to identify. Following duty there guarding a Patriot missile base, they were sent into Iraq in April 2003.

Camilo's account: "On May 30, my squad was ambushed for the first time in the eastern part of Ar Ramadi in what was called the 'Sunni Triangle.' We heard a whistle as we passed an area that was notorious for bombed out buildings. Next, a bomb exploded in the road in front of our lead Hum Vee. Prior to this attack I had briefed my squad on what I understood to be Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), which was that if we were ambushed we should "haul ass" while returning fire with our weapons. Following the blast, bullets rained down on us from rooftops on both sides of the road as we drove out of the area."

"Back at the base, we were euphoric that no one had been hurt in the ambush. My commander, XO, and 1st Sgt. immediately asked to be briefed. When I told them what happened they asked me why we had fled rather than staying and fighting. I told them that it was SOP to try and drive out of an ambush. They agreed, but added that we had just sent the wrong message to our attackers because our mission is not to run from the enemy-but to kill them. The next morning our commander passed down word that in the future we should not celebrate our 'failures' and celebrating our escape also sends the wrong message to other soldiers."

It dawned on me that protecting our troops didn't rank very high on our leaders' agenda. Medals, glory, and "sending the right message" were all worth the lives of a few soldiers. This war was more complicated than I had imagined. Not only did we have to be careful with the enemy but we also had to be careful with our own leaders too."

"In my experience, our unit of activated reservists was treated differently than active duty GIs. For example, when one of our soldiers was injured or killed, we didn't receive a replacement. It was the same thing with supplies and equipment. We never really got resupplied with the ammo, weapons, vehicles, night vision gear, etc. that we consumed. We left the States without even having a basic clothing supply. As far as ammo, we travelled with just a basic combat load and weren't resupplied. In some instances, we had to exchange ammo magazines within our platoon before going out on missions. When an improvised explosive device (IED) blew up one of our vehicles, we didn't get a new one."

"It also bothered me that we weren't allowed to use the mess hall or commissary of the 82d Airborne, our parent unit. In my mind, we should have been treated as equals since we were all taking the same risks."

"This shortage of personnel drove my commanders to do some pretty despicable things. The soldier I mentioned earlier with defective hearing was kept in the unit even though an IED explosion had made his hearing even worse. I remember lending him my notes after our squad leaders' meeting since he couldn't hear our platoon leader's briefing while sitting a few feet away. This would directly affect his proficiency as a squad leader. He didn't dare request to be sent home but he did ask the doctors to get him a hearing aid. One of our doctors told him to 'get out of my face' and to wait until our deployment was over.

Another soldier whose surrogate mother was dying was denied permission to return home, while another's request to visit his 13-year-old daughter who'd just been raped was also turned down."

The Making of a Conscientious Objector

"When I saw with my own eyes what war can do to people, a real change began to take place within me. I have witnessed the suffering of a people whose country is in ruins and who are further humiliated by the raids, patrols, curfews of an occupying army. My experience of this war has changed me forever."

"One of our sergeants shot a small boy who was carrying an AK-47 rifle. The other two children who were walking with him ran away as the wounded child began crawling for his life. A second shot stopped him, but he was still alive. When an Iraqi tried to take him to a civilian hospital, Army medics from our unit intercepted him and insisted on taking the injured boy to a military facility. There, he was denied medical care because a different unit was supposed to treat our unit's wounded. After another medical unit refused to treat the child, he died."

"Another time, my platoon responded to a political protest in Ar Ramadi that had turned violent. My squad took a defensive position on a rooftop after some protesters started throwing grenades at the mayor's office. We were ordered to shoot anyone who threw anything that looked like a grenade. A young Iraqi emerged from the crowd carrying something in his right hand. Just before he threw it, we all opened fire, killing him. The object turned out to be a grenade, which exploded far from everyone. I know that the man we killed had no chance of hurting us-he was too far away. My platoon leader later told us that we killed three other Iraqis during this same protest although I didn't see them die."

"I also learned that the fear of dying has the power to turn soldiers into real killing machines. In a combat environment it becomes almost impossible for us to consider things like acting strictly in self defense or using just enough force to stop an attack."

Coming Home

"Going home on leave in October 2003 provided me with the opportunity to put my thoughts in order and to listen to what my conscience had to say. People would ask me about my war experiences and answering them took me back to all the horrors-the firefights, the ambushes, the time I saw a young Iraqi dragged by his shoulders through a pool of his own blood, the time a man was decapitated by our machine gun fire and the time my friend shot a child through the chest."

"Coming home gave me the clarity to see the line between military duty and moral obligation. My feelings against the war dictated that I could no longer be a part of it. Acting upon my principles became incompatible with my role in the military and by putting my weapon down I chose to reassert myself as a human being."

Surrendering to the Military: Challenging the War

On March 15, 2004, Sgt. Mejia spoke at a public rally/press conference at the Peace Abbey, near Boston, MA and then surrendered to military authorities. Once he is assigned to a military base, the command will decide whether to prefer criminal charges or separate him administratively. Meija could be charged with both desertion and "missing a movement to avoid hazardous duty" Each carries a maximum prison term of five years. He could also be given a Dishonorable Discharge. If he is placed on trial, Citizen Soldier cooperating attorney Louis Font, of Boston, will offer expert witnesses to testify that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq violates international law, including the UN Charter. In addition, Meija will file an application for discharge as a Conscientious Objector (CO).

Speaking Out Against the War

As the first American veteran of the Iraq war to publicly refuse further service, Sgt. Mejia has discussed his resistance with Dan Rather on CBS' "Sixty Minutes," Capa and Canal TV, France, CNN, Asahi TV, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's "Dialogue" show, and various newspapers and magazines including the Chicago Tribune, Le Journal du Dimanche (France), the Guardian (UK), the Shukan Bunshun weekly (Japan), and Il Manifesto (Italy). In the months ahead he will continue to speak out in support of all resisters to this illegal war.

LEGAL UPDATE...

Efforts by Camilo's defense lawyers to introduce evidence about his legal duty, under international law, not to return to Iraq, were rejected by the military judge. After listening briefly to the proposed testimony of international law professors Jules Lobel and Francis Boyle, the judge ruled that he wouldn't allow the military jury to hear any evidence of international law violations. This reduced the trial to the simple issue of whether Camilo had returned to Iraq, as ordered, on October 16, 2004 or not.

The defense also filed a motion asking that charges be dismissed because a treaty between Costa Rica and the U.S. bars "compulsory military service" by either country of the other's nationals. Since Camilo is a Costa Rican citizen and his eight year enlistment contract expired in April, 2003 the treaty should have prevented the military from keeping past his discharge by imposing a "stop loss" order. Without requesting additional briefs or testimony, the judge rejected this argument.

After deliberating very briefly, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty to desertion charges. Even though four enlisted men who'd served with Camilo all testified to his bravery and diligence as a squad leader in Iraq., the jury imposed a maximum sentence of one year in prison, Bad Conduct discharge and loss of all rank and most pay.

Army Rejects C.O. Claim of Camilo Mejia, Wrongly Claiming that It's Based Soley on His Political Opposition to Iraq War

2006-10-18T14:15:00.000-07:00

Army Rejects C.O. Claim of Camilo Mejia, Wrongly Claiming that It's Based Soley on His Political Opposition to Iraq War

Citizen Soldier

Pvt. Camilo Mejia, the first Iraq war veteran to base his combat refusal on his conscience and international law, was informed by the Army's CO hearing officer on August 20, 2004 that his CO claim had been denied since it was "based soley on his view of the war in Iraq."

Captain Michael W. Johnson, the hearing officer, conducted a one day CO hearing at the Ft. Sill, OK stockade in late June. Mejia presented several witnesses who attested to his sincerity and integrity. Catholic Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit and a CO counsellor, Louis Randa of the Peace Abbey, Boston, both testified about the centrality of Mejia's religious beliefs and his CO claim.

Louis Font, of Brookline, MA, Mejia's civilian defense attorney stated; "This ruling flies in the face of both the facts and the law. Camilo is entitled to hold political views about the war in Iraq as long as he meets the CO legal standard of opposing participation in all war. The Army just didn't want to keep a GI behind bars whom its own commanders had found to be a CO."

Tod Ensign, of Citizen Soldier, who has sponsored Mejia's defense, observed; "This nonsensical ruling may explain why the Army has been reporting that the number of CO applications is down during the Iraq war. If CO claims of other GIs are being handled in the same manner, it's no wonder that GIs would be discouraged from filing them."

Once the hearing officer's recommendation has been reviewed by Ft. Stewart Commanding General William Webster, it will be forwarded to the Army's Conscientious Objector Review Board in the Pentagon for the final decision. It's likely that both will be happy to rubber stamp this recommendation.