Soldiers Who Refuse to Kill

David Swanson

Dissident Voice August 10, 2012

One of the most inspiring events thus far at the Veterans For Peace National Convention underway in Miami was a presentation on Thursday by several veterans who have refused to participate in war. Typically, they have done this at the risk of significant time in prison, or worse. In most cases these resisters avoided doing any time. Even when they did go behind bars, they did so with a feeling of liberation.

Gerry Condon refused to deploy to Vietnam, was sentenced to 10 years in prison, escaped from Fort Bragg, left the country, and came back campaigning for amnesty. President Jimmy Carter pardoned resisters as his first act in office. Condon never ‘served’ a day, in either the military ‘service’ or prison.

Jeff Paterson of Courage to Resist refused to fly to Iraq, choosing instead to sit down on the tarmac. Ben Griffin from VFP’s new chapter in the U.K. refused to participate in our nations’ wars and has been issued a gag order. He’s not permitted to speak, and yet he speaks so well. Mike Prysner of March Forward and Camilo Mejia of VFP here in Miami described their acts of resistance.

Mejia did us all the enormous favor some years back of putting his story down in a book — an extreme rarity, sadly, for peace activists with great stories to tell. Mejia’s book ‘Road From Ar Ramadi’ is a terrific introduction for anyone wondering why someone would sign up for the military and then refuse to kill people. Mejia, who now works on domestic civil rights issues in Miami while remaining part of the antiwar movement (another rarity), is a co-convenor of the VFP convention.

In October 2003, Mejia was the first U.S. soldier to publicly refuse to fight in Iraq. At that time only 22 members of the U.S. military had gone AWOL from that war, a number that would quickly climb into the thousands as the war worsened and as belief in the various rationales offered for the war evaporated. Soldiers also began to refuse particular missions that would be likely to kill civilians or to put themselves at risk for no purpose other than the advancement of a commander’s career — a commander safely giving orders from a base. Veterans of the Iraq War would soon work with Veterans For Peace to form a new organization, Iraq Veterans Against the War. But at the time of Mejia’s refusal to fight he stood virtually alone.

Mejia joined the military largely for the very same reason most Americans do: the lack of other options. He had worked his way through high school and community college. But the government cut off his financial aid, and he couldn’t afford the college bills. The Army offered him college tuition and financial security. That was enough. This son of Sandinista revolutionaries headed off to Fort Benning, the home of the School of the Americas, where he would train to kill for U.S. empire.

Mejia learned to dislike the military. His commitment was due to end in May 2003. But in January 2003, the Florida National Guard shipped off to begin the invasion of Iraq that President Bush was publicly pretending to try to avoid and privately concocting harebrained schemes to get started. Mejia’s contract was extended to 2031 (not a typo), and he was sent to Jordan. He was neither for nor against the military or the war in any simple sense. He was aware of the massive peace demonstrations around the world. He disliked many things about the military and about this particular war, which he believed was a war for oil. But he was loyal and obedient, not yet convinced of the extreme immorality of the operation in which he was playing a part.

Mejia’s first experience in Iraq involved the abuse of prisoners. He disliked these practices but did not resist. Mentally he tried to brush them aside as the work of ‘a few bad apples.’ Or he tried to justify doing what he was doing out of loyalty to the soldiers around him.

Mejia gradually became aware of Iraqis’ desire that the occupation end, but he believed it would end very quickly. During an Iraqi protest, a young Iraqi man was about to toss a grenade, and Mejia aimed and fired — as did others around him. The young man died instantly, but the trouble the incident aroused in Mejia’s soul did not.

Mejia was troubled by his fellow soldiers’ racist hatred of all Iraqis. Innocent Iraqis were imprisoned and interrogated, when they weren’t shot. Their dead bodies were mistreated by joking soldiers snapping photos with their prize pieces of flesh. ‘It occurred to me,’ Mejia writes of some Iraqis who observed such actions, ‘how upsetting it must have been for them to see their relative in the dirt, half naked and covered in blood, being laughed at and humiliated even in death.’

The beginnings of resistance among the troops arose out of their growing awareness that their commanders were using them in a competition for the most fire fights, the most kills, and the most prisoners. The needs of this competition outweighed justice or even strategy. Returning to base with innocent prisoners was far preferable to returning empty-handed. There was no grander goal driving any operations, as far as the soldiers could see. They went on patrols the entire purpose of which was to guard themselves as they patrolled.

As Iraqi resistance grew, so did U.S. fear, to the point where troops would fire even on unarmed children if the soldiers couldn’t be certain that the children posed no danger. Mejia understood both points of view, and came to realize that in war the choices are bad or horrendous. The only good choice, he began to see, is to not cooperate with war at all.

At one point Mejia tried to explain to some Iraqis something he barely believed any longer himself, that the war was aimed at bringing ‘freedom’ to the people of Iraq. One of the Iraqis who knew something about Mejia’s situation pointed out that Mejia wished to leave the military and could not. ‘So how,’ this Iraqi asked, ‘can you bring freedom to us, when you don’t have freedom for yourselves?’ When Mejia took part in raids of Iraqi houses, he viewed the terror the Iraqis showed of U.S. capture and ‘detention’ as misguided. Surely prisoners would all be fairly tried and released if innocent, he told himself. ‘As it turned out,’ Mejia admits, ‘the families . . . knew my own army much better than I did.’

Yet the troops that left the bases knew more than the commanders who didn’t. The latter, falsely believing that resistance was coming from outside the local area, ordered all the wrong roads blockaded to no purpose. The soldiers who knew such decisions were wrong dared not say anything for fear of what challenging a ‘superior’ can do to your career.

Mejia was able to return to the United States for two weeks’ leave. He went AWOL with assistance from peace groups, and turned himself in to face possible imprisonment. He’d ‘served’ more than the eight years he’d agreed to. And he believed the war was killing human beings for no useful purpose whatsoever.

A mockery of a charade of a pretense of a trial convicted Mejia and sentenced him to 1 year in jail. ‘That day,’ as he went to jail, Mejia recalls, ‘I was free, in a way I had never been before.’



David Swanson is an anti-war activist. Read other articles by David.

Dear Supporter,

"Sixty-seven years ago today, the first uranium bomb was exploded above Hiroshima with the force of 15 thousand tons of TNT.

Tens of thousands were killed by the blast and fireball that engulfed the city, and a similar number died of radiation sickness and injuries in the days and months that followed; in total 140,000 dead by 1945’s end. Three days later, Nagasaki was shattered by a plutonium bomb.

...As we remember the devastation wrought by two relatively small nuclear bombs in August 1945, we cannot afford to be complacent.... A treaty banning nuclear weapons is urgent, necessary and achievable, and negotiations on such a treaty should begin. Now."

ICAN Vice-Chair Rebecca Johnson from the article 'Preventing Another Hiroshima' - the complete article is now online here http://icanw.org/node/6119

To commemorate Hiroshima Day this year, ICAN has just completed a new booklet 'Catastrophic Humanitarian Harm' Please paste into your browser : http://icanw.org/node/6116 that examines the catastrophic effects of nuclear weapons on our health, societies and the environment.

The booklet aims to help reframe the nuclear weapons debate placing health, social and environment concerns at the centre of all discussions about nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

We hope that this booklet will both inform and help to provide you with new materials to help build the growing movement towards the abolition of nuclear weapons.

We invite you to download the booklet by clicking here or on the image above.

Kind regards,

The ICAN team
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

Who's protecting whom from what? Who's protecting what from whom?

Joan Chittister
From Where I Stand
National Catholic Reporter July 30, 2012

Here's an American statistic for you about "American exceptionalism" that seems to get lost under the headlines about a slowly recovering economy and a growing number of billionaires. This figure -- at least between attempted massacres like in Austin, Texas, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora and the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, to name a few -- rarely surfaces. The fact that we lose 48,000 people a year in this country to the attacks of private people using privately owned guns seldom makes headlines. Only the atrocities they leave behind them sell newspapers.

There is not another country in the world with that much gun violence on their streets. In the United States, there are 88 guns for every 100 people. That means we already have a privately owned gun for almost every man, woman and child in the country. Only the Arabian Peninsula nation of Yemen comes anywhere close to that kind of civilian firepower, with a ratio of 54 guns to every 100 Yemeni. So does democracy work or doesn't it? Clearly, "the land of the free and the home of the brave" is fast threatening to become the land of the gun and the home of the dead.

But oh, we cling to them. We shout treason, in fact, in the face of anyone who questions their numbers, their types, their easy availability. "It's un-American," we argue, to dare to challenge even the sale of them, let alone their use. On few other subjects does the pitch of the public discourse reach such frenzy. Politicians shout and pound desks; otherwise mild men turn blue in the face at the thought of even allowing a public discussion of the issue.

You've heard all the arguments against gun control, I know: "Guns don't kill people," the posters say, "people do." As if anybody is arguing that guns, as in "Toy Story 3," just get up at midnight and shoot people.

Or better yet, these days the argument goes: "If everybody else in the theater in Aurora, Colo., had a gun, so many other people would not have been shot" -- all notion of body armor and strategic weaponry notwithstanding.

Or, as a young man told me yesterday, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the First Amendment. As if that is all that assures the continued functioning of the First Amendment in this country.

Or, this is a free country -- and, apparently, the reduction of violence is an impediment to that.

Or it's unfair to hunters to control gun sales. As if 6,000 rounds of ammunition is necessary during deer season.

Or, a new one: If we take away the right to bear arms, "the government will lead us where we don't want to go, and there won't be a thing we can do about it." As if voting or going to court or passing new laws or protesting peacefully doesn't work, despite the fact that it did during the labor and the suffragette and the civil rights movements. Massive and unrelenting gun wars on the streets have never solved America's problems before. Why would we set ourselves up to do it now?

More to the point, perhaps: If we pass gun-control laws, the National Rifle Association will not be able to buy so much influence in Washington. The NRA will not be contributing so much money to congressional election campaigns. Representatives and senators will not get the big campaign chests that assure their re-election and so guarantee that the country will never get gun-control laws.

Indeed, under all those social tensions, two questions beg to be considered. First: Is federal control of public behavior ever possible in a free country? And second: If so, what kind of controls, if any, can possibly be acceptable?

Well, think about it: The government regulates drugs, even drugs that are critical to a citizen's self-preservation.

We don't think twice about the necessity to regulate driving speeds even of cars capable of speeds of over 100 mph on highways that are surely capable of holding them.

We regulate alcohol and restrict its public use in order to assure the greatest degree of safety for all.

We regulate food sources, animal care, food products and food processing in the interest of the public good.

We define certification requirements to assure competence in life-altering professions like medicine, air travel, police personnel, lifeguards and lawyers.

And in the midst of it all, in response to the second question about the kinds of controls possible, the Supreme Court has ruled that though U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment is liable to "reasonable restrictions."

We also, then, must have a right to be protected from the wanton, uncontrolled, unbalanced, dangerous use of guns in the public arena. We have a right to be protected from Wild West gunfights masking as personal or public defense in our public life. We have a right to protect people who are in no mental state to protect either themselves or someone else from the demons with which they struggle but have no little or no control over themselves. We have a right to be protected from the rise of private arsenals in a country that claims to be a nation of law and order.

We have a right to be protected from chaos promoted in the name of security. Otherwise, dissolve the police forces. Save your money and do it yourself.

What we really need is the right to be protected from an uncontrolled NRA that refuses to be controlled, even reasonably.

Or to put it another way: Why is it that both Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama were clearly for gun control before they were elected, but not now? Now one won't discuss it at all. The other one finally talked about the problem -- quietly, a bit, sort of -- but notice that there's no specific proposal and definitely no clamor from either side of Congress to support it. No one's lining up to press for such legislation on-camera for this one. Not in an election year. Even as they tell us that they are brave enough to be president, none of them is apparently brave enough to take on the NRA? So much for leadership.

From where I stand, this is a conversation long overdue. Our record for violence in this country is a blight on our public presence as a rational nation among the community of nations. Our refusal to seek a common solution -- better yet, the insistence by some that the answer to violence is more violence, more guns, more shooting, more civilian warfare -- approaches the irrational. At very least, it is a dangerous moment of public docility in the face of one more invisible bully in a nation where bullying has become a national disease -- this time, it seems, by adults.

And, oh yes, by the way, I do come from a family of hunters who never, ever set out to terrify rabbits with AK-47s, 6,000 rounds of ammunition and a drum magazine.

Fighting the Vampire Within - Paul Balles

‘Murder is not an anomaly in war.’ - Chris Hedges

Information Clearing House July 22, 2012

Early warriors massed on bloody battlefields with everything from sticks and screams to swords, bows and arrows, muskets and cannons. That scene remained both disgusting and ridiculous.

The grim reaper heard the call of wild, raging bloodthirsty troops who could never get enough of head-slicing swords and cannon fodder.

If that description of what goes on in battle is heinous and upsetting, waken to the reality that we encourage at a distance, nourish and sponsor and celebrate when the young--willingly sacrificed--return in body bags for burial.

It's not only the buried dead who rattle the Gatling guns of our souls. Listen to the unforgiving voice of ex war correspondent Chris Hedges:

If we really saw war, what war does to young minds and bodies, it would be impossible to embrace the myth of war. If we had to stand over the mangled corpses of schoolchildren killed in Afghanistan and listen to the wails of their parents, we would not be able to repeat clichés we use to justify war.

Warfare has now reached the psychotic stage of comfortable blood-letting at a distance with remote controlled predator drones.

Comments Glenn Greenwald, "The military slang for a man killed by a drone strike is 'bug splat', since viewing the body through a grainy-green video image gives the sense of an insect being crushed."

How psychotic it is when a warrior sits comfortably at a computer guiding an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) hundreds of miles from his target to a "bug splat".

Instead of growing up, maturing after centuries of mass murders at the whim and fancy of bloodthirsty madmen, we satisfy our murderous desires at a safe distance from the exploding bodies that splat like bugs!

America's drones are nothing more than a clever attempt to distance America's vampires from their bloody victims.

In the past decade 30 countries have been involved in one kind of war or another--from America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to separatist movements, civil unrest, insurgencies and uprisings, religious and ethnic conflicts.

After WWII, the United Nations was founded to avoid further catastrophic wars. But there have been more conflicts in the world since the founding of the UN than during any previous period in history.

In any war, nightmarish atrocities become commonplace. People get used to hiding and running in fear, to refugee camps, secretly hating the blood-letting violators of decency.

“War is always about betrayal," says Hedges, "betrayal of the young by the old, of idealists by cynics and of troops by politicians.”

Those who bleed, those who bear excruciating pain, and those who struggle to take their last breath have all been betrayed.

As Hedges reminds us, “The violence of war is random. It does not make sense. And many of those who struggle with loss also struggle with the knowledge that the loss was futile and unnecessary.”

That the people of 30 countries continue to struggle with the futility of war doesn't seem to faze any but a few idealists with no control over their own fate, much less that of others.

Unable to control their bloodletting urges, America, Iran and Israel are sabre-rattling to prepare for yet more murder and maiming sessions of missile madness.

Netanyahu's government reserves the right to strike directly at Iran if it doesn't believe Washington and others are doing enough--through diplomacy or sanctions--to stop it going nuclear.

When are we going to reach the stage where useful energy replaces the vampire within and empathy replaces violence?



Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years.

Tamil deported despite desperate pleas

Sydney Morning Herald July 25, 2012

Daniel Flitton

A desperate bid to stop Australian immigration officers deporting a Tamil man back to Sri Lanka has failed — despite fears from his family he will be killed on his return.

He is the first Tamil asylum seeker to be forcibly deported directly from Australia since the latest spate of arrivals begin in 2008 and follows revelations this week about the torture and abuse of other failed asylum seekers returned to Sri Lanka.

Immigration authorities took the man — who his family insists suffers from mental illness — from the Maribyrnong detention centre this morning and packed him off to Melbourne airport.

An 11th hour bid by refugee advocates to make a legal challenge to prevent his deportation failed to materialise.

He was placed on a flight out from Tullamarine at around 2PM to be returned to Colombo via Bangkok.

The man — who the National Times has chosen not to identify — has failed in his bid for refugee status but his family insist he is in grave danger at home.

‘If he goes there, they kill him,’ his tearful sister said before the flight left.

‘What sort of country do we live? Please give him to me – I will look after him.’

She said the man, originally from the northern city of Jaffna, suffers from mental illness and arrived in Australia in 2010 by plane, seeking asylum.

But he exhausted all appeals for refugee status, though his supporters say they have lodged an appeal with the United Nations for a review.

Tamil newspapers have published photographs and personal details about the man, including a purported arrest warrant.

He had been living with his sister in the Melbourne suburb of Dandenong but was called into the Immigration department in the CBD last Tuesday and given a letter that told him authorities have judged ‘you are removable’.

He was then immediately taken into detention.

His supporters mounted a weekend protest outside the centre in an attempt to stop his deportation.

His brother-in-law said he had asked to be allowed to see the man before he was deported, but was refused.

An immigration department spokeswoman refused to confirm the deportation.
‘We don’t comment on operational details and won’t comment on removals until after they occur,’ she said.’

Further comment is being sought.

Letter sent to Politicians and Church Officials from Pax Christi Australia

Pax International
Christi Christian Peace Movement
Australia

National President: Father Claude Mostowik MSC
61+2+9550 3845
0411 450 953
mscjust@smartchat.net.au


July 6, 2012

The Hon Julia Gillard
Prime Minister
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2602

Dear Prime Minister

I am writing to you on behalf of Pax Christi Australia, which is a section of the international Christian movement for Pax Christi International. This letter is supported by the three branches of Pax Christi Australia, Pax Christi Australia (NSW), Pax Christi Queensland and Pax Christi Victoria.

Our members are deeply committed to peace and justice issues, and as some of us work on a daily basis with asylum seekers and refugees, we are committed to a humane, compassionate and welcoming attitude towards asylum seekers.

As we followed the recent parliamentary debates, we have shared the concern and pain felt by members of parliament for the plight of the asylum seekers. We understand that compromises need also to be made to save the lives of people taking dangerous journeys in their search for freedom and protection. But, we have looked for action from our political leaders as have many Australians who have been left angry and helpless. We have been concerned that the emphasis on the arguments has been about people smugglers and stopping boats rather than saving lives and providing services that obviate people from making genuine claims closer to the home countries.

Our membership is aware of the situation of many of the people who seek asylum, and we are distressed about the needless loss of life as people take huge risks in trying to seek asylum. We know that there are many compassionate Australians who feel the same as we do.

Pax Christi Australia (NSW) is aware that this is not an easy issue to deal with, but we call for:

o a change of attitude and focus that seeks to help rather than hinder people from making claims, that is, provision of resources at consulates and embassies close to their country of origin where the claims for asylum can be processed. In some countries this may not be possible, as in Afghanistan, but would be possible in neighbouring countries such as Pakistan and Iran.

o an immediate increase in the humanitarian intake as both of the major parties have already suggested

o onshore processing of people who have already arrived in Australia – as is their right.

o request the Minister for Foreign Affairs to have a conversation with the leaders of Malaysia and Indonesia that might lead to their countries signing the Refugee Convention and then also fulfill its requirements in practise.

Again, we recognise the difficulties in dealing with the plight of asylum seekers. A change of attitude and focus would at least present to the world that we are really are caring and compassionate nation; that we are a responsible neighbour in the Asia Pacific region; and that we take responsibility also for our contribution to the increase in people seeking asylum because of our military involvement in Iraq and ongoing involvement in Afghanistan

We look forward to your response to our suggestions and concerns.

Yours sincerely



Father Claude Mostowik msc jp
National President

Copies
Hon Tony Abbott, Leader of the Opposition
Hon Chris Bowen, Minister for Immigration
Hon Scott Morrison, Opposition Spokesperson for Immigration
Senator Christine Milne, Leader of the Greens
Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Australian Greens spokesperson for Immigration and Citizenship,
Bishop Christopher Saunders, Chairman of the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council,
Father Maurizio Pettená CS, National Director, Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office
Mr John Ferguson, Executive Officer, Australian Catholic Social Justice Council

A more sustainable approach to alleviate the plight of asylum seekers to Australia

Dear friends,

I forwarding this on behalf of the Australian Catholic Migrantion and Refugee Office for your information and possible interest. Please feel free to forward this to people who may be interested.

Peace

Claude Mostowik msc


Dear Episcopal Vicars and Directors,

The Australian government is looking to determine what support may be available from the Australian community for the possibility of having community groups and congregations directly support the resettlement of refugees.

The Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office has been engaging with government authorities to reach a more sustainable approach to alleviate the plight of asylum seekers and refugees in full accordance with Catholic Social Teaching. On the outset, this may be a wonderful opportunity for Catholic communities to be “a comfort for the afflicted, a refuge for the persecuted, a homeland for the exiled” (Pope Pius XII Apostolic Constitution, Exsul Familia Nazarethana, 1952)


The attached document explains further what the government is proposing.

Essentially, the government would like to know whether community groups;

1. Would like to be directly involved in the resettlement of refugees?

2. Who would they like to sponsor?

3. Could financially support refugees to come to Australia?

4. Could provide support with pastoral care, accommodation, household items, furniture, food, utilities, clothing etc?

5. Could help refugees rebuild their lives and gain employment?

The ACMRO will begin preparing a submission which must be finalised by Friday, 27 July 2012.

To help us prepare our submission we are seeking your views, opinions and interest in the community sponsorship program. You can greatly assist us either by addressing the five questions proposed above, or by directly referring to the attached discussion paper and providing advice in regards to any or all of those 18 questions.

It is important to note that this program is in the proposition stage, and therefore will raise a lot of questions, I would encourage you to express any concerns and put forward any suggestions.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated and will help us to make an informed submission which more accurately reflects the views of the Catholic community and potential for a refugee sponsorship program.

I kindly ask that you provide any advice before Monday, 23 July 2012 to allow us time to collate the information and prepare a succinct submission.


On behalf of Fr Maurizio Pettenà,
National Director ACMRO



Kind regards,



Joe Moloney

Research and Information Officer

AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC MIGRANT & REFUGEE OFFICE
Australian Catholic Bishops Conference

GPO Box 2720 Canberra ACT 2601

T: (02) 6201 9895

F: (02) 6247 7466

E: joe.moloney@acmro.catholic.org.au