Iraq & Vietnam War Stories

A VIETNAM WAR NURSE’S STORY - NO BACKGROUND MUSIC

Tom Weiner — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:20:05 +0000

I received notice about a very important play being performed this upcoming weekend in Springfield. Here’s the information. I hope some of you can attend. Both the play itself - all about the experiences of Penny Rock - and the talkback with Vietnam War veterans will no doubt be very moving.

NO BACKGROUND
MUSIC
A powerful play based on personal
experiences of Vietnam

4 Free Performances -Aug. 8, 9,10 &11

Exactly 40 years ago, Army Nurse
Penny Rock cared for soldiers at the
front lines. This original, one-act play
is her story.

Written and performed by Normi Noel,
these performances are followed by
45-minute Talkbacks with the author,
nurse, and Vietnam veterans.

Sponsored by: Springfield Armory
National Historic Site
Performances:
Friday August 8 7:30 PM
Saturday August 9 7:30 PM
Sunday August 10 2:00 PM
Monday August 11 2:00 PM
Seating is limited.
To reserve contact spotlightinc@verizon.net
or 413-737-8474.
Springfield
Cultural Council

Women in the Military Deserve So Much Better Treatment!

Tom Weiner — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:44:03 +0000

I have posted before about the absolutely unacceptable rate - 1 in 3 - of sexual assault in the American military, but insult has been heaped upon injury as the Defense Department is apparently covering up these crimes by refusing to allow the woman in charge of its SEXUAL ASSAULT AND PREVENTION RESPONSE OFFICE to testify in Congress this Thursday. That 12% of the victims are male is additionally upsetting and that a third of the actual assaults go unreported is indicative of the culture of fear and humiliation that the military encourages with its responses.

This time I am also including the responses the article about this gross injustice has engendered on www.commondreams.org where it appeared today, since they tell a story as well. Several deal with the reality of young women (and men) deciding whether to join a military that puts their safety in jeopardy from their fellow servicemen and then does not enable them to seek redress. Frightening and disturbing and one has to wonder whether such awful realities will change under an Obama presidency. But there, too, there is cause for outrage as the latest polls show the McCain campaign team’s strategy of appealing to the worst instincts in the electorate this past week - depicting Obama as yet another mindless celebrity (a la Ms. Hilton and Ms. Spears, both of whom merit not our attention, but our sympathy as unwitting victims of our crazed culture) seeking attention and as being an ego-maniac who the McCain folks compare to Moses - worked and he is back neck and neck with his Democratic rival. When I hear such news items I have to work hard not to feel tremendous frustration and doubt about our collective future. If the article that follows moves you, please consider letting Congresspeople know that you are outraged at the silencing of yet another woman who is poised to speak truth to power. And let’s be thankful that Ann Wright suffers neither fools or cover-ups lightly!

Published on Monday, August 4, 2008 by TruthDig.com

Sexual Assault in the Military: A DoD Cover-Up?

by Ann Wright

There was quite a struggle in Congress this week. The Department of Defense refused to allow the senior civilian in charge of its Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) to testify in Thursday’s hearing on sexual assault in the military. Rep. John Tierney, chair of the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, angrily dismissed Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Michael Dominguez from the hearing when Dominguez said that he, the DoD chief of legislative affairs and the chief of public affairs, had ordered Dr. Kaye Whitley, chief of SAPRO, to refuse to honor the subpoena issued by the subcommittee for her appearance.

Full committee Chairman Henry Waxman called the DoD’s decision to prevent Whitley from testifying “ridiculous and indicating DoD is covering something up.” It could also place Whitley in contempt of Congress. Rep. Christopher Shays said the DoD’s decision was “foolish.”

One of the questions that would have been put to Whitley was why DoD had taken three years to name a 15-person civilian task force to look into allegations of sexual assault of military personnel. The panel was finally named early in 2008 but has yet to meet. She would have also been queried on the SAPRO program’s failure to require key information from the military in order to evaluate the effectiveness of sexual assault prevention and response programs.

I spoke with Dr. Whitley in April 2007 and had asked for an appointment to bring to her office four military women who had been sexually assaulted and wanted to tell her in what ways the DoD programs to prevent sexual assault were not working. Whitley declined, saying she worked at the policy level, and steered me to the chief of the Army sexual assault program. I called the Army program’s chief, who initially said she would talk to our group. However, when I mentioned that the mother of Army Spc. Suzanne Swift, who had been raped in Iraq, would be with us, she said she could not meet with anyone involved with an ongoing case. I replied that Swift’s case was closed as far as the Army was concerned. Her rapist had not been prosecuted, and Swift ended up with a court-martial and 30 days of jail time because she had gone AWOL for her own protection when the Army would not move her out of the unit to which both she and her rapist were still assigned. In view of the fact that the Army chief of prevention of sexual assault refused to meet with any of the four women who had suggestions on how to improve prevention and reporting of sexual assault and rape, I’m not surprised that the DoD snubbed Congress over the same issue.

Rep. Elijah Cummings joined Rep. Waxman in speaking of cover-ups. Cummings raised the cases of military women who had been sexually assaulted before dying in “non-combat incidents.” He spoke specifically about Army Pfc. LaVena Johnson, who was found beaten and dead of a gunshot wound at Balad Air Base, Iraq, in a burning tent owned by the contractor KBR. Her parents suspected that Johnson had been murdered and that the homicide was being covered up by the Army, which deemed the death a suicide. Cummings also spoke of Army Pfc. Tina Priest, who was raped at Taji, Iraq, and found dead 10 days later of a gunshot wound. After her family had measurements taken of her arms and of the angle of the bullet and found that she could not have pulled the trigger of her M-16 with her finger, the Army said she had pulled the trigger by using her toe. Cummings asked Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle, chief of U.S. Army personnel, for assistance in getting all the documents the Army had on Johnson’s death. Additionally, four House members have asked for congressional hearings on the deaths of military personnel who have been classified as suicides, among them LaVena Johnson.

The fireworks with DoD followed the dramatic testimony of Mary Lauterbach, the mother of murdered pregnant Marine Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, who had been raped in May 2007 at Camp Lejeune, N.C. Accused in the case is Marine Cpl. Cesar Laurean. After the rape, several protective orders were issued to keep Laurean away from his victim. The burned body of Lauterbach and her unborn baby were found in a shallow grave in the backyard of Laurean’s home in January 2008. Laurean fled to Mexico, where he was subsequently apprehended, and he now is awaiting extradition to the United States to stand trial. Lauterbach’s mother explained in great detail the warning signs that Laurean was a danger to her daughter and claimed that all these signs were ignored by the Marine Corps.

Two other military women have been murdered near military bases in North Carolina in the past two months.

Red Cross employee Ingrid Torres told the subcommittee of being raped at Kunsan Air Base in South Korea by an Air Force flight doctor. She spoke of the difficulty she had obtaining medical and emotional treatment from the facility where the doctor still worked, and later from military facilities in other parts of the world where she was assigned.

Rep. Jane Harman cited Veterans Administration statistics that one in three women in the military has been sexually assaulted. She said the prosecution rate of those accused of raping fellow military service members is abysmally low. Of the 2,212 reported rapes in the military in 2007, only 8 percent of the cases ended in court-martial of the perpetrator, while the rate of prosecution in civilian courts is 40 percent.

Lt. Gen. Rochelle, the Army chief of personnel, reported the little known statistic that 12 percent of reported rapes in the military are of male military personnel.

Rep. Shays said he had no confidence in DoD or the military services and their policies of prevention of sexual assault, and asked how recruiting will fare when young women learn that one in three women is sexually assaulted and when young men find out that one in 10 men is raped while in the military.

Brenda Farrell, director of the Government Accountability Office, said that getting data on rape from the military services is difficult because there are no common definitions of terms for the services to use in such cases.

Farrell said the GAO believes rates of sexual assault currently used by DoD are low because many military personnel do not want to report what happened and suffer the gossip, harassment and stigma prevalent in units when confidential reporting is compromised. In a survey of 3,757 persons on 14 military installations, 103 said they had been sexually assaulted in the past year and had reported it, while 52 others said they did not report the sexual assault.

Several Congress members spoke of lack of leadership and accountability in stopping sexual assault. The same day as the sexual assault hearing, the Navy relieved two senior officers of the USS George Washington because of the injury to 23 sailors and $70 million in damage to the ship caused by a smoking violation. Imagine if commanders in units where rape occurred were relieved of command for the harmful actions of their subordinates. That would send a signal of zero tolerance of sexual assault, whereas in the current climate victims are intimidated and alleged perpetrators are given administrative punishment instead of court-martial.

Sexual violence against both female and male military personnel must stop. Let Congress know of your concern about sexual assault in our military. Call or e-mail members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees and members of the Oversight and Government Reform committees.

Ann Wright is a retired Army Reserve colonel and a 29-year veteran of the Army and Army Reserves. She was also a diplomat in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. She resigned from the Department of State on March 19, 2003, in opposition to the Iraq war. She is the co-author of “Dissent: Voices of Conscience” (www.voicesofconscience.com).

14 Comments so far

Rockerbabe1 August 4th, 2008 12:43 pm

Boys will be boys! I bet none of the supervisory military officers would want their sons or daughters in the situation so many other military personnel have faced. Maybe,if the DoD would “walk in the shoes of another”, then maybe, they would take criminal assault seriously.
locust August 4th, 2008 1:20 pm

“…how recruiting will fare when young women learn that one in three women is sexually assaulted and when young men find out that one in 10 men is raped while in the military.”

Who’s going to tell them? The military? The media?
I haven’t seen any such information on any military tv ads. It should be mandatory, just like all the side-effect caveats at the end of drug ads.

“You may notice adverse side-effects to military enlistment, like bleeding from rape trauma, feelings of utter helplessness and paranoia, followed by what will be described officially as your suicide.”
citizenblog August 4th, 2008 1:29 pm

When a systematic regime of torture (General Taguba’s conclusion) is left to sham military tribunals and the people ordering it not held accountable, is it any wonder that similarly criminal activities (a systematic regime of rape) within the Army is dealt with with similar disdain? Zero tolerance is the only way to make torture and sexual assault become uncommon occurrences. Better still, get rid of the military. No grey here.

The situation is even worse for women working for private military contractors where justice seems even less likely.

http://tinyurl.com/48jr6w

“Rep. Jane Harman cited Veterans Administration statistics that one in three women in the military has been sexually assaulted. ”

A statistic for Outrage!

Letter to Congress on the way. It is becoming a full time unpaid job communicating with my representatives. I wish they would just do their job that they get paid for.
grigor August 4th, 2008 1:32 pm

My, my - Rep. Harman is concerned about such things. Harman - the warmonger neocon Democrap, yuk!
Samson August 4th, 2008 1:35 pm

Once upon a time, Congress had power and knew how to use it.

Did anyone notice the scene in “Charlie Wilson’s War” where he wants answers on what’s going on in Pakistan, and he threatens to cut money every day from the budget until he gets it. The CIA guy is in his office by 10 am to talk to him.

That’s how to handle this. You don’t BS around with contempt charges. Instead, they call Sec. Gates personally and say this ….

“Every day of delay before Dr. Whitley testifies before my committee means $10 billion gets cut off the overall DoD budget.”

Do that, and be willing to back it up, and I’d bet Dr. Whitley is there by 10 am.
Ronald White August 4th, 2008 2:06 pm

and asked how recruiting will fare when young women learn that one in three women is sexually assaulted and when young men find out that one in 10 men is raped while in the military.

If I , a rationally-thinking female recruit surmised my possible fate when surrounded by ten , twenty , thirty…MALE “admiring eyes” who ,state-side, would be admiring spouses , girlfriends , fiances , kids… and whose punishment for “enhanced admiration” goes unpunished,unreported , I would weigh that fate against the alternative of perpetual poverty or the risk of being labelled unpatriotic and then politely shun the recruitment centres.

As with most “diseases” the Sexual-Assault-in-the-Military syndrome is going to have to approach HIV/AIDS proportions before there is a mass movement against the military in general.

Americans just don’t care;it’s understandable;it’s the “just say no” to socialism slip that’s showing.

In the mean time , a lotta lt.-and-under-ladies will die.
wild_watcher August 4th, 2008 3:30 pm

typical- this committee, not unlike other committees is shut out with wonderful excuses.

typical- the governmental systemic impotence is kept covered.

typical- the abusers shift the blame to the victims.

typical- justice in the courts is profaned daily.

break the traditional. vote Nader

wild
Thomas More August 4th, 2008 3:49 pm

Ann Wright is correct in every facet of her article.

This is a disgrace for the service’s, but even more so for military leadership. Heads should roll and some careers should be wrecked because many senior officers forgot their prime directive. Protect theier troops. Not the service, not the officer corp and damn sure not the government.

The DOD needs a good house cleaning anyway. Why not start now?
Rebel Farmer August 4th, 2008 5:22 pm

Citizenbolog said: “When a systematic regime of torture (General Taguba’s conclusion) is left to sham military tribunals and the people ordering it not held accountable, is it any wonder that similarly criminal activities (a systematic regime of rape) within the Army is dealt with with similar disdain? Zero tolerance is the only way to make torture and sexual assault become uncommon occurrences.”

Exactly right! Either you have the Rule of Law or you don’t. Either officials are held accountable or they aren’t. Either the Congress does its job or it doesn’t. Pretty clear cut.

So, as citizens we also have a job. Either we hold our elected officials accountable or we don’t. Either we speak up or we don’t. Either we vote on principle or we don’t. Pretty clear cut really.
Gail August 4th, 2008 7:04 pm

“One of the questions that would have been put to Whitley was why DoD had taken three years to name a 15-person civilian task force to look into allegations of sexual assault of military personnel.”

Well, it probably took them 3 years to figure out how to get around these allegations and/or destroy any evidence that would convict these misfits.
Thomas More August 4th, 2008 7:12 pm

Rebel Farmer August 4th, 2008 5:22 pm &
Citizenbolog

“Exactly right! Either you have the Rule of Law or you don’t. Either officials are held accountable or they aren’t. Either the Congress does its job or it doesn’t. Pretty clear cut.”

Well said!
citizenblog August 4th, 2008 7:42 pm

Citizens For Ethics and Responsibility in Washington Releases Report Honoring “Those Who Dared”

On July 16, CREW released a report titled “Those Who Dared: 30 Officials Who Stood Up for Our Country.” Offering a more optimistic view of Washington, the report tells the tales of thirty brave individuals who have acted and spoken out against unethical and dishonorable conduct in the Bush administration. The report is the culmination of the review of hundreds of news articles, inspector general reports, and congressional reports. The impact of the individual’s actions, the risk involved, and the changes that resulted were also taken into consideration in the decision making process. Some of those included in the report, such as Glenn Fine of the Department of Justice and John Higgins at the Department of Education acted to check agency-wide corruption, misconduct, and undue political influence. Other individuals are included because of a single act of courage, like Army Specialist Joseph Darby who was responsible for turning over the picture of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib to authorities. Other honorees include Inspector General Earl Devaney, Dr. James Hansen of NASA, and U.S. Army Major General Antonio Taguba.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/33317
Johnny36 August 4th, 2008 7:46 pm

This has been going on forever. When I was a young PFC back in the 1950’s the women who were then called WACS were considered something less than trailer court trash and the fact that it continues today is a tribute to the military mind. The 4 star generals who set the pace are usually tough old birds of the paternalistic order who don’t take kindly to anyone telling them how to treat women folk; after all, its their property.

It is slowly changing; the rhetoric has certainly changed, but when women are being raped and murdered on a regular basis it is clear that the Department of Defense is largely responsible. I few well publicized castrations would cool the ardor of these cowardly military bastards.
Juliann August 4th, 2008 8:11 pm

Years ago I said to a group of women - all of whom had children, boys and girls - that the rate of violence in this world would be greatly reduced if at birth males had one testicle removed. Anticipating anger from the mothers of boys - they surprised me by saying (to a woman) “why stop at one?” (I like millions of women had MY ovaries removed at some doctor’s whim - I didn’t know better - so don’t start with the charges of male bashing.)

As a gender, males are dangerous to society.

AFGHANISTAN is Not the Place to Go for the Right War!

Tom Weiner — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:39:05 +0000

The article below appeared on the website commondreams.org in the wake of both presidential candidates urging that, with the casualty toll down in Iraq, more troops and resources be committed to the War in Afghanistan. TIME MAGAZINE had a cover story about Afghanistan asking whether it could be the RIGHT WAR a couple of weeks ago. This reporter attempts to answer that question by examining what is happening in Afghanistan and what our presence there is causing to the populous and the government. He strongly urges our government to listen to the views of the Afghan people who are expressing their collective desire not to have us ratchet up the war and our occupying presence as we have woefully done in Iraq.

This is definitely going to be a significant issue in the upcoming election as well as for the next administration. I would be very interested in the views of those who read what follows:

—————————————————————————————

Published on Thursday, July 31, 2008 by Foreign Policy in Focus

Afghanistan: Not a Good War

by Conn Hallinan

Every war has a story line. World War I was “the war to end all wars.” World War II was “the war to defeat fascism.”

Iraq was sold as a war to halt weapons of mass destruction; then to overthrow Saddam Hussein, then to build democracy. In the end it was a fabrication built on a falsehood and anchored in a fraud.

But Afghanistan is the “good war,” aimed at “those who attacked us,” in the words of columnist Frank Rich. It is “the war of necessity,” asserts the New York Times, to roll back the “power of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.”

Barack Obama is making the distinction between the “bad war” in Iraq and the “good war” in Afghanistan a centerpiece of his run for the presidency. He proposes ending the war in Iraq and redeploying U.S. military forces in order “to finish the job in Afghanistan.”

Virtually no one in the United States or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) calls for negotiating with the Taliban. Even the New York Times editorializes that those who want to talk “have deluded themselves.”

But the Taliban government did not attack the United States. Our old ally, Osama bin Laden, did. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not the same organization (if one can really call al-Qaeda an “organization”), and no one seems to be listening to the Afghans.

We should be.

What Afghans Say

A recent poll of Afghan sentiment found that, while the majority dislikes the Taliban, 74% want negotiations and 54% would support a coalition government that included the Taliban.

This poll reflects a deeply divided country where most people are sitting on the fence and waiting for the final outcome of the war. Forty percent think the current government of Hamid Karzai, allied with the United States and NATO, will prevail, 19% say the Taliban, and 40% say it is “too early to say.”

There is also strong ambivalence about the presence of foreign troops. Only 14% want them out now, but 52% want them out within three to five years. In short, the Afghans don’t want a war to the finish.

They also have a far more nuanced view of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. While the majority oppose both groups -13% support the Taliban and 19% al-Qaeda - only 29% see the former organization as “a united political force.”

But that view doesn’t fit the West’s story line of the enemy as a tightly disciplined band of fanatics.

Whither the Taliban

In fact, the Taliban appears to be evolving from a creation of the U.S., Saudi Arabian, and Pakistani intelligence agencies during Afghanistan’s war with the Soviet Union, to a polyglot collection of dedicated Islamists to nationalists. Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar told the Agence France Presse early this year, “We’re fighting to free our country. We are not a threat to the world.”

Those are words that should give Obama, The New York Times, and NATO pause.

The initial invasion in 2001 was easy because the Taliban had alienated itself from the vast majority of Afghans. But the weight of occupation, and the rising number of civilian deaths, is shifting the resistance toward a war of national liberation.

No foreign power has ever won that battle in Afghanistan.

War Gone Bad

There is no mystery as to why things have gone increasingly badly for the United States and its allies.

As the United States steps up its air war, civilian casualties have climbed steadily over the past two years. Nearly 700 were killed in the first three months of 2008, a major increase over last year. In a recent incident, 47 members of a wedding party were killed in Helmand Province. In a society where clan, tribe, and blood feuds are a part of daily life, that single act sowed a generation of enmity.

Anatol Lieven, a professor of war at King’s College London, says that a major impetus behind the growing resistance is anger over the death of family members and neighbors.

Lieven says it is as if Afghanistan is “becoming a sort of surreal hunting estate, in which the U.S. and NATO breed the very terrorists they then track down.”

Once a population turns against an occupation (or just decides to stay neutral), there are few places in the world where an occupier can win. Afghanistan, with its enormous size and daunting geography, is certainly not one of them.

Writing in Der Spiegel, Ullrich Fichter says that glancing at a map in the International Security Assistance Force’s (ISAF) headquarters outside Kandahar could give one the impression that Afghanistan is under control. “Colorful little flags identify the NATO troops presence throughout the country,” Germans in the northeast, Americans in the east, Italians in the West, British and Canadians in the south, with flags from Turkey, the Netherlands, Spain, Lithuania, Australia and Sweden scattered between.

“But the flags are an illusion,” he says.

The UN considers one third of the country “inaccessible,” and almost half, “high risk.” The number of roadside bombs has increased fivefold over 2004, and the number of armed attacks has jumped by a factor of 10. In the first three months of 2008, attacks around Kabul have surged by 70%. The current national government has little presence outside its capital. President Karzai is routinely referred to as “the mayor of Kabul.”

According to Der Spiegel, the Taliban are moving north toward Kunduz, just as they did in 1994 when they broke out of their base in Kandahar and started their drive to take over the country. The Asia Times says the insurgents’ strategy is to cut NATO’s supply lines from Pakistan and establish a “strategic corridor” from the border to Kabul.

The United States and NATO currently have about 60,000 troops in Afghanistan. But many NATO troops are primarily concerned with rebuilding and development - the story that was sold to the European public to get them to support the war - and only secondarily with war fighting.

The Afghan army adds about 70,000 to that number, but only two brigades and one headquarters unit are considered capable of operating on their own.

According to U.S. counter insurgency doctrine, however, Afghanistan would require at least 400,000 troops to even have a chance of “winning” the war. Adding another 10,000 U.S. troops will have virtually no effect.

Afghanistan and the Elections

As the situation continues to deteriorate, some voices, including those of the Karzai government and both U.S. presidential candidates, advocate expanding the war into Pakistan in a repeat of the invasions of Laos and Cambodia, when the Vietnam War began spinning out of control. Both those invasions were not only a disaster for the invaders. They also led directly to the genocide in Cambodia.

By any measure, a military “victory” in Afghanistan is simply not possible. The only viable alternative is to begin direct negotiations with the Taliban, and to draw in regional powers with a stake in the outcome: Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, China, and India.

But to do so will require abandoning our “story” about the Afghan conflict as a “good war.” In this new millennium, there are no good wars.

Conn Hallinan is a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist.

NEW ZEALAND STUDENTS INSPIRE!!!

Tom Weiner — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:22:27 +0000

A story to inspire us! Students in New Zealand are refusing to sit quietly by while one of the architects and spokespeople for the Bush agenda of preemptive war, occupation and control - Condoleeza Rice - visits their country. Instead they are marching in protest and speaking out against the U.S. policies that have wreaked havoc upon the Middle East and the world at large. Will they inspire similar actions by others? Have we lost hope that such protest can have an effect? When I read this I felt encouraged to think that there are young people who are saying no to our government and its leaders, condemning them as war criminals. In combination with the Senate hearings resulting from Dennis Kuchinich’s articles of impeachment about Bush’s imperial presidency I am wondering if there may be at least a chance that change will happen - the kind of change that encourages us, that gives us confidence that a better day is indeed possible.

New Zealand Students Offer New Bounty For Arrest of Condoleezza Rice For War Crimes

by Ray Lilley

WELLINGTON, New Zealand - A group of New Zealand students offered a higher reward Saturday for the citizen’s arrest of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for war crimes after another group withdrew their own bounty, accusing police of threatening them.

Students at Victoria University in the capital, Wellington, doubled the original reward offer to US$7,400, according to Joel Cosgrove, the student president.

Cosgrove said Rice should be arrested because she is responsible for the deaths of at least 600,000 Iraqis killed since the 2003 invasion by U.S.-led coalition troops.

“Condoleezza Rice needs to be tried before the international war crimes tribunal,” Cosgrove told New Zealand’s National Radio.

The new bounty came a day after the Auckland University Students’ Association made a formal complaint to local police seeking Rice’s arrest for “overseeing the illegal invasion and continued occupation” of Iraq in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The Auckland students offered a reward of 5,000 New Zealand dollars (US$3,700), but late Friday withdrew the bounty. Student President David Do said authorities had threatened criminal charges for anyone trying to make a citizen’s arrest.

“It is unfortunate the police have threatened students for essentially a form of peaceful protest and civil disobedience,” Do said.

Superintendent Brett England, the district police commander in Auckland, New Zealand’s biggest city, warned anyone attempting to penetrate the security around Rice would be punished.

“The consequences of such a security threat could be very serious indeed,” England said.

Rice, asked about the demonstration at a news conference Friday, said “student protests are particularly a long-honored tradition in democratic society.”

“I can only say that the United States has done everything that it can to end this war on terror, to live up to our international and national laws and obligations,” Rice said.

About 70 people protested Saturday outside Government House, where Rice was meeting with Prime Minister Helen Clark.

A PARENT’S PERSPECTIVE ON WAR AND LOSS

Tom Weiner — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:26:55 +0000

This story needs no introductory comments. Another very much in the same spirit was on MORNING EDITION this morning…

THE COSTS OF WAR: A PARENT’S AGONY

by Ann Wright

Every day for a parent of a person in the United States military is a long day filled with concern for their daughter or son. Parents of nine US Army soldiers were notified of the deaths of their family members in Afghanistan this week.

July 16 and 17, 2008 have been extraordinarily long days for another group of parents.

In Washington, DC, on July 17, 2008, John and Linda Johnson, the parents of US Army Private First Class (PFC) Lavena Johnson met US Army criminal investigators concerning the classification of the death of their daughter who died three years ago on July 19, 2005 in Balad, Iraq. The Army labeled her death as a suicide despite evidence from materials the Army reluctantly provided to the parents that she was beaten, bitten, sexually assaulted, burned and shot. Despite numerous questions from Dr. Johnson about the Army’s investigation and determination of suicide, the Army stuck to its guns that Lavena Johnson committed suicide. After the briefing, the Johnson’s asked Congressman William Lacy Clay and Congresswoman Diane Watson to request House Oversight and Governmental Reform committee Chairman Henry Waxman to hold hearings that would require production of witnesses who will testify under oath to their knowledge of how Lavena died– an attempt to get information that the Army has so far failed to provide.

On July 16, 2008, at Fort Knox, KY, the Helen and Eric Burmeister, the parents of Private First Class (PFC) James Burmeister, attended the court-martial of their son. After being in three IED explosions in Iraq, upon his unit’s return to Germany, James left his unit and flew to Canada. He stayed in Canada for ten months and while there, in hopes of ending the practice, spoke publicly about “bait and kill” zones used by some military units to entice Iraqis into a zone with interesting objects and then shooting them. James voluntarily returned himself to military control at Fort Knox four months ago. In those four months despite shrapnel still in his body and raging PTSD, James was provided with minimal medical and emotional assistance. He was court-martialed on July 16, 2008 for being absent without leave (AWOL) and was convicted. The prosecution brought up the public statements and interviews Burmeister gave on “bait and kill.” He was sentenced to six months in jail, a loss of pay, reduction to private and a bad-conduct discharge that will deny him medical assistance for physical and emotional wound suffered on active duty. He was taken from the court directly to jail.

On July 16, 2008, in Boise, Idaho, the parents of US Army war resister Private First Class (PFC) Robin Long waited for the news that their son had been deported from Canada and placed in the hands of the US military. Ironically, war-resister Long was handed over to US officials at the Peace Arch on the US-Canadian border, just north of Seattle, Washington. Three years ago, in 2005, Long went to Canada after refusing to serve in Iraq, a war he called an “illegal war of aggression.” A Canadian federal judge on July 15 ordered that Long be deported after she ruled that he failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that he will suffer irreparable harm if he is returned to the United States. Long was taken by Washington State police to a civilian jail to await the arrival of Army military police who will transport him to the military prison at Fort Lewis, Washington. Eventually, he will be returned to his unit in Colorado for probable court-martial. At least 200 other US military personnel are in Canada. Several have requested refugee status but have been denied and risk deportation.

The costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to mount. The lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of Iraqis and Afghans have been permanently damaged by these wars. Support the families, but end the war.

Retired US Army Reserve Colonel Ann Wright served 29 in the US Army and Army Reserves. She also was a US diplomat and served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. She was on a small team that reopened the US Embassy in Afghanistan in December, 2001. She is the co-author of “Dissent: Voices of Conscience.”

RENEWED HOPE FOR WAR RESISTERS IN CANADA!!!

Tom Weiner — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:49:49 +0000

Democracy Now reported the potentially good news for war resisters in Canada. Though it is not the open door some had hoped for there is hope that the Canadian government will accept those whose consciences refuse to let them participate in a war that violates the Geneva Convention on a regular basis. Would that our government or any branch thereof had the will to take such a stand. As indicated in the interview with Joshua Key, the soldier who has witnessed atrocities in Iraq and deserted, and his lawyer, Jeffry House, who deserted to Canada during the Vietnam War when Pierre Trudel declared that Canada would be a “refuge from militarism”, the court’s recommendation does not yet deal with the case of Corey Glass. He is the soldier whose story has been featured in past posts about the Canadian government’s response to American deserters. If the doors open wider, the numbers, estimated at 200, could increase dramatically as they did during Vietnam (50,000) though then the huge preponderance of Americans in Canada were evading the draft. Amy Goodman tells us, “Protest actions are expected to take place this Wednesday at Canadian consulates in at least thirteen cities here in the United States.” Maybe there’s one coming to a consulate near you. More to come…

Canadian Court Rules Immigration and Refugee Board Reconsider Asylum Claim for US War Resister

In a victory for US war resisters, Canada’s federal court ruled Friday that the Immigration and Refugee Board should reconsider the asylum claim of conscientious objector and Iraq war veteran Joshua Key. The court ruled that Key had been forced to systematically violate the Geneva Conventions as part of his military service in Iraq and that such misconduct amounts to a legitimate refugee claim. We speak with Key and his lawyer, Jeffry House. [includes rush transcript]

Joshua Key, Iraq war resister. Private in US Army and deployed to Iraq in 2003. Left after six-and-a-half months and filed for conscientious objector status in Canada. He is also the author of a book called The Deserter’s Tale: The Story of an Ordinary Soldier Who Walked Away from the War in Iraq.

Jeffry House, lawyer for Joshua Key.

AMY GOODMAN: In a victory for US war resisters, Canada’s federal court ruled Friday the Immigration and Refugee Board should reconsider the asylum claim of conscientious objector and Iraq war vet Joshua Key. The court ruled Key had been forced to systematically violate the Geneva Conventions as part of his military service in Iraq and that such misconduct amounts to a legitimate refugee claim.

Friday’s ruling came a month after the June 3rd parliamentary motion to allow US war resisters and their family members to stay permanently in Canada. The non-binding motion called on the Canadian government to stop all deportation actions against US war resisters in Canada. A recent poll also found a majority of Canadians, 64 percent, are in favor of granting permanent residence status to conscientious objectors from the United States. As many as 200 US war resisters are currently living in Canada.

We’re joined now by Iraq war resister Joshua Key, on the phone from Saskatchewan, also the author of The Deserter’s Tale: The Story of an Ordinary Soldier Who Walked Away from the War in Iraq. We’re also joined in Toronto by Joshua’s lawyer, Jeffry House, who himself was a Vietnam War resister, and we welcome you, as well, to Democracy Now!

Starting off with Joshua Key, your response to the Canadian court decision?

JOSHUA KEY: It’s very hopeful, and I’m glad to see the process go forward.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me go to Jeffry House. Jeffry, can you explain what the decision is? It’s not final, but explain exactly its significance.

JEFFRY HOUSE: Well, the federal court accepted the findings of the Refugee Board, that Joshua Key had been ordered by his superior officers to systematically violate the Geneva Conventions in the way in which he and his squad was operating in Iraq. The Refugee Board, the lower court, had said, OK, he did violate the Geneva Conventions, but he didn’t commit war crimes, so he’s not a refugee. And the federal court said, no, that’s too narrow of an understanding of the right of a soldier to refuse improper orders. And they said that if you were ordered to violate the Geneva Conventions on a systematic basis, you have a right to refuse, and any punishment that follows from that refusal will make you a convention refugee and protected by international law.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, the decision was to send this case back to a lower court, is that right?

JEFFRY HOUSE: That’s right, because there’s a question here in Canada, which is whether soldiers face punishment or not. We have argued and have given examples of soldiers who have refused to participate in the Iraq war who are in fact punished. But nonetheless, the Federal Court of Appeal here in Canada had said that there’s insufficient evidence that soldiers who refuse to serve will be punished by the government of the United States.

So, in Joshua’s case, if there’s even a hint that he will face punishment if he’s returned to the United States, that would give rise to a refugee claim. However, if he were simply to be discharged and not further used as a soldier, then, according to the court decision, he would not be a convention refugee.

AMY GOODMAN: Joshua Key, can you tell us about your time in Iraq? What did you tell the court about your experience there?

JOSHUA KEY: I told them it was death, destruction and chaos on our behalf. I’ve looked at it as many times in my participation in Iraq in dealing with raids, traffic control points and just civilian killings, that you shouldn’t have to go back—none of us should have to go back and participate in it.

AMY GOODMAN: Did you describe particular experiences you had in Iraq? And if you could speak as loud as you can.

JOSHUA KEY: There was one incident in Ramadi, my second time there, which I was on a QRF mission. It was like a SWAT team for the military for some instance. We were on call for a twenty-four-hour timeframe. We got the call late at night, early in the morning. It was—we were going on the banks of the Euphrates River. We took a sharp right turn, and on the left-hand side I see four decapitated Iraqi bodies. When we parked our armored personnel carrier, I was told to get out and find evidence of a firefight or such, if happened.

There was this American soldier on the right with American soldiers around him, and he was saying they had lost it there. On the left-hand side, there was American soldiers kicking one of the heads around like a soccer ball. So at that time, I got back inside my APC.

The next day, I asked if I could see a written statement or if I could put my—for what I had seen at that location, and I was told it was none of my concern, none of my business. So, that’s when I started questioning things.

AMY GOODMAN: And then, what happened? How long—how much longer were you in Iraq?

JOSHUA KEY: I was there for still another two-and-a-half months before I got a two-week leave period, which I went back to Fort Carson, Colorado. At that time, I called a military lawyer and asked him what was my situation—you know, what could I do? I didn’t want to go back to Iraq. I was already having symptoms of post-traumatic stress—

AMY GOODMAN: Again, Joshua, if you could speak as close to the phone and as loud as you can.

JOSHUA KEY: OK. They said that—the lawyer said I had two choices: either go back to Iraq or go to prison. At that time, me and my wife and my children, we made our—my own decision and that was to go on the run, which we lived in Philadelphia for fourteen months underground, until we made the choice to come across to Canada.

AMY GOODMAN: There is a case of Corey Glass this week, who has a scheduled deportation back to the United States—he’s another war resister—on July 10th. Jeffry House, what happens to him now with this decision?

JEFFRY HOUSE: Well, it’s not clear that this decision is directly related to him, although it might be that he would want to try to reopen his case in the federal court, because as it happens now, there’s a broadened definition of when a person, a soldier, has a right to conscientiously object, not to war in general, but to specific activities of a specific unit that he or she may be in. So, it may be possible for Corey Glass to do that.

At the same time, the Parliament of Canada has called on the government to just let every soldier in these circumstances stay in Canada if they haven’t committed criminal offenses, which no one has. And that, I think, is the overriding reality here, that we have the elected representatives of the people of Canada telling the minority government: make something happen for these people. And it’s just unfortunate that the government is dragging its feet and considering the issue and probably bending over backwards so that the US administration is not offended.

So, essentially, that’s Corey Glass’s position right now. On the one hand, he’s got a kind of invitation from the national Parliament to stay here, and on the other hand, the administrative procedures are at the last point before actual forced departure to the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to a clip of Corey Glass. Protest actions are expected to take place this Wednesday at Canadian consulates in at least thirteen cities here in the United States. This is Corey Glass’s message to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

COREY GLASS:

The people of Canada support us. A recent poll shows that Canada wants war resisters to stay. And Parliament voted on June 3rd to allow us to stay in Canada. I’ve lived and worked in Canada for almost two years. I hope you will give full consideration to my case and the will of Canadian people, and please stop my deportation before July 10th.

AMY GOODMAN: That is war resister Corey Glass in Canada, appealing to the Canadian prime minister. Jeffry House, how many war resisters, US war resisters, are there now in Canada, and how does this compare to war resisters in Vietnam, like you?

JEFFRY HOUSE: Well, there’s about 200 war resisters here now, and basically there’s little comparison to the later period of Vietnam, in which there were 50,000 people here, mostly draft dodgers like myself, but also some who were deserters. Probably ten to 15 percent were military deserters from the Vietnam War.

One important thing, though, to remember is that early on in the Vietnam War, there were only a few hundred. And after a long struggle, the doors were forced open here. So, prior to 1969, the numbers increased without much possibility, much clear possibility, that people would be allowed to stay. But by November of 1969, Mr. Trudeau, the prime minister at that time, declared that Canada should be a refuge from militarism. Those were his words. And as a result, the doors opened and people flooded in, people who didn’t want to participate in the Vietnam War.

So, consequently, I look at the numbers as a fluid thing. And it is, to some extent, kept low by the fact that up to this point the government of Canada hasn’t opened the door. But given that Parliament has done so, given that Parliament has made this recommendation to the government, I think that we may soon be in a situation similar to that when Trudeau made his declaration, and many more people may end up here.

AMY GOODMAN: Joshua Key, what would happen if you came back to the United States?

JOSHUA KEY: I don’t know. I’ve been told many different things and many different scenarios. You would only know, when you were sent back there, what would really happen.

AMY GOODMAN: And what has been the response of the Canadian people to you taking refuge in Canada?

JOSHUA KEY: Oh, from as far as the Canadian people are concerned, it’s about 95 percent positive. Where I live, there’s—you know, I don’t hear any public objection. I’m sure some people don’t approve or believe in what I did. But I look at that as they don’t know the circumstances or the case. Most people, after they hear the complete story in detail, then they understand then it’s not—there’s no question.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you want to come back to the United States if you were not punished?

JOSHUA KEY: Well, I would love to come back to my home. You know, that’s where my family lives. That’s where my kids’ grandparents and their family lives. I mean, that will always be home. And I’ve never had an objection with the American people. It’s always been with the government, so I love America.

AMY GOODMAN: Joshua Key, we’ll leave it there, Iraq war resister, a private in the US Army, deployed to Iraq in 2003. Thank you very much, Jeffry House, lawyer for Joshua Key, speaking to us from Toronto.

ANOTHER POWERFUL PIECE - ABOUT SOLDIER SUICIDE - FROM WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG

Tom Weiner — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:26:27 +0000

I am posting this in its entirety with the comments as well as the article by James Carroll. He minces no words in telling what is happening to our soldiers who are suffering from both their service and the gross negligence of our government and its inadequate and in denial veteran’s administration. His determination to get the word out is an effort to undue the complacency and numbness he describes: “As America has steadily averted its gaze from the actualities of its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so, too, has the nation refused to look at what is happening to those it sends to fight.” With articles like this one, if we are willing to read it and let its affects be felt, perhaps we can move a step closer to finding a way to end these abominable wars. He goes on to describe the sources of stress, including not knowing from one minute to the next who the enemy is, and fighting, not to bring democracy to the citizens of these countries, but simply and tragically, to avenge the loss of one’s fellow soldiers. No wonder these men are attempting and succeeding in taking their own lives in unprecedented and increasing numbers…

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Discuss this story Print This Post E-Mail This Article

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Discuss this story Print This Post E-Mail This Article

Published on Monday, June 30, 2008 by The Boston Globe

A Blind Eye on Soldiers’ Suicides

by James Carroll

“Support the troops” is an American lie. This nation is grievously and knowingly failing the young men and women who wear the uniform of its military services, and nothing demonstrates that more powerfully than the suicides of soldiers. According to the Army’s own figures, the rate of suicide among active duty personnel nearly doubled between 2001 and 2006. The number then grew even higher in 2007, when suicide ranked third as the cause of death among members of the National Guard. Even if proximate causes vary from war zones to home fronts, such data are anomalous, since suicide rates among soldiers historically go down during wartime, not up.

Veterans, too, are in trouble. In May, the head of the National Institute of Mental Health warned of “a gathering storm.” Thomas Insel told the American Psychiatric Association that one in five of the 1.6 million soldiers who have been deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan (or more than 300,000) suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome or depression. Potentially life-threatening mental disorders, including self-destructive behavior like addiction, raise the prospect, in Insel’s words, of “suicides and psychological mortality trumping combat deaths.”

As America has steadily averted its gaze from the actualities of its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so, too, has the nation refused to look at what is happening to those it sends to fight. Repeated deployments to war zones, combined with meager support upon returning home, are leaving many soldiers adrift. Each one who commits suicide, or attempts to (more than 2,000 last year), shows this. It would be presumptuous to draw conclusions from any single instance of such despair, but taken as a whole, these acts of self-destruction lay bare some difficult truths.

The war in Iraq, in particular, is an exercise in the obliteration of meaning. The war’s essence is its lack of essence. The war’s catch-22 is that its stated goal is social order, while the American presence itself creates disorder. Our troops know this. They arrive in the war zone with every intention of protecting an innocent population from the enemy, only to discover that the enemy and the population are indistinguishable. “Insurgents” often turn out to be, not ideologues, much less “terrorists,” but only cousins of those already killed. Victims and victimizers are alike. Suspicion is ubiquitous. No one trusts Americans. Such contradictions make the war controversial in the United States, but in Iraq they make the soldiers’ situation intolerable.

These particular problems exist within a larger context of collapsing sources of meaning. The myths on which the military ethos depend have been broken.

Whatever ethnic fevers grip Iraqis, for example, American soldiers know, if only unconsciously, that the passion for nationhood on which 19th- and 20th-century wars depended is being undercut by the global citizenship of the 21st century. Not since Earth was seen whole from the moon is nationalism what it was. Even more transforming, faith in technological violence as an instrument of justice is being undercut by the catastrophic planetary outcome that can already be anticipated if technological violence is not curbed. The human naiveté that uses violence in the name of ending violence can no longer be sustained. For Americans plunged into the heart of this contradiction, the unbridled violence of their own nation points to the suicide of the very species.

But for American soldiers, it is more personal even than that. For meaning’s sake, their purpose has been defined around loyalty. Unit cohesion is the absolute virtue. Thus our soldiers prepare to die not for Iraq, nor even for America, but for one another. “I’ve got your back,” they promise. In combat, such commitment is often heroically fulfilled, but, alas, once the bureaucracy replaces the buddy, loyalty, too, is found to be a lie. Harsh to say, but the American military cares nothing for the individuals who comprise it, only for the mission those individuals, in formation, can accomplish. Hence the shameful exploitation of troops in disabling redeployments, and the resulting abuse of their families. Hence the nation’s abandonment of those, who, upon discharge, find no unit, no cohesion, and their backs against the wall. Support the troops? On your bumper.

Suicide is always a tragedy, and, whether accompanied by a note, always a message - one that survivors must read. In the case of soldier suicides, we Americans are all their next of kin. Their despair demands our attention. What are they telling us?

James Carroll’s column appears regulary in the Globe.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Discuss this story Print This Post E-Mail This Article

38 Comments so far

BoricuaPower June 30th, 2008 12:36 pm

WoW. why isnt this out there more? will this article and these posts stay on this page only, or can it ever make it anywhere bigger to have an impact?

instead of “bring the troops home” the soldiers themselves should be saying, “fuck this, we’re coming home”.
worried1 June 30th, 2008 1:31 pm

“For Americans plunged into the heart of this contradiction, the unbridled violence of their own nation points to the suicide of the very species.” Sad, isn’t it.
Good article, James Carroll.
Thanks
st john June 30th, 2008 1:43 pm

“Suicide is always a tragedy, and, whether accompanied by a note, always a message - one that survivors must read. In the case of soldier suicides, we Americans are all their next of kin. Their despair demands our attention. What are they telling us?” “We Americans are all their next of kin.”

The message of this “war” and all the other human conditions with which we are now confronted–fires in CA; flooding in the Heartland; soaring gasoline prices concomitant with the rise of almost every other “necessity” for life here and abroad; earthquakes in China; Typhoons or Cyclones elsewhere; the bursting of the “housing bubble” and associated foreclosures and housing prices declining–is that we may no longer separate ourselves from each other. We are One Human Family, here on this planet to learn and grow. Each of us is individually tasked with that one purpose, whether we believe it or not: to learn and to grow. Isn’t that what childhood is all about? Why would it stop at childhood? Learn about each other and how we may grow together, in peace and harmony. We have been provided with wonderful opportunities to learn about cooperation. Let us pause for a moment and consider what we may each do, individually and as a community, to elevate our consciousness to one of inclusion, not exclusion.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john
TSS June 30th, 2008 1:50 pm

What are they telling us?! “Whatyou sow,so shall you reap”…What you do to others,you do to yourself…All spiritual traditions teach that at a profound level,the “other” is an illusion…he/she ia really part of you..when you throw mud at somebody,it may or may not reach the “other” person,but your hands will definitely be muddy…when you immerse youself in violence,death and destruction,that becomes your world…the guilt at your very core is profound and often seeks the ultimate punishment..suicide..
This is the ultimate price a soldier pays…when hundreds of thosands of soldiers are trapped in this negative vicious cycle, we ALL pay by a corrosion of our very deepest spiritual being.
Bane Richter June 30th, 2008 2:06 pm

The US Army uses and abuses its cannon fodder. A corrupt entity that entitles some obese CEO in Alexandria a hefty salary while a brain damaged 20-something rots at Walter Reed.
They’re criminals, and they can’t cover up this little suicide problem they’ve created.
See today’s other CD article where management attempts to push blame for the ongoing debacle, in a pathetic attempt to drain away more wealth and resources. Kids, tell the Army forcefully to go f&*k themselves, and never have anything to do with a corrupt, broken, infamous dinosaur. Know your enemy.
arcing28 June 30th, 2008 2:12 pm

There are not enough words in the English language to correctly describe what George Bush has done to the Soldiers on active duty and the Veterans of this war and other conflicts. Having Bush as Commander in Chief is compared to being led, in War, by a renegade Boy Scout. Showing no empathy whatsoever and relying on his favorite phrase of, “They volunteered, didn’t they?” to get his ass out of the frying pan.

A friends son is a fifty year old Sergaent in the reserves. Served in the original iraqi war and two tours in this one. He has 60 days to go for a full retirement but has just been redeployed to Iraq. His odds become worse with each deployment. My friend is livid with rage.

Having served my time in the Military I understand “The Chain of Command” but cannot believe that some high ranking officers haven’t taken these men to task. Meaning Bush and Cheney.
frank1569 June 30th, 2008 2:39 pm

“The war’s catch-22 is that its stated goal is social order, while the American presence itself creates disorder. Our troops know this. They arrive in the war zone with every intention of protecting an innocent population from the enemy, only to discover that the enemy and the population are indistinguishable.”

And, unlike the bad old days, our soldiers have much greater access to the truth, via the Net and cell phones etc. both in theater and in between deployments. Most know about the thousands of lies that sent them into the illegal mess, and the thousands of lies that followed and continue, etc. Most even understand the “war on terror” is total bullshit, and that, since The USA is not officially nor Constitutionally in a state of war with any country on Earth, they actually have no official “Commander in Chief,” just some f**king twisted moron who likes to play one on TV.

How our soldiers haven’t managed to organize and storm the White House and arrest the lying, war profiteering, resource stealing domestic enemies of our Constitution at this point is truly amazing…
NMBill June 30th, 2008 2:39 pm

http://veterans.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=242

18 per day succeed/ 1000 attempts per month
overkill June 30th, 2008 2:42 pm

Maybe the GIs finally realized what they have been Neo-Conned into.

“WASHINGTON - The Pentagon said Monday it is charging a Saudi Arabian with “organizing and directing” the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole — and will seek the death penalty.”

As I recall, the Cole was on it’s way to bombard Iraqi civilians to sate Slick’s impeachment rage. Seventeen combatant’s deaths.

As I recall, Haditha had 24 completely innocent civilians, men, women and children murdered by GIs, none of who are held to account.

As I recall, the USS Liberty had 36 innocent American sailors murdered by deliberate Israeli straffing. None of those killers were held to account.

It seems to me that American ‘justice’ lets the killers of innocents walk free but executes opposing soldiers…

It’s no wonder that our young completely betrayed soldiers are fleeing this horror by any means possible.
ZeroPointField June 30th, 2008 2:43 pm

When you see the Sticker “Support Our Troops”, what does it mean to you? And, what do you think it means to the guy who put it on the bumbper?

The stickers started appearing when the war first started - the second war on Iraq that Bush illegally started. At that point, I was incapable of supporting our troops. I did not support the war. It seemed to me that the people we were fighting were not a blanket nation but small groups of likeminded antagonists.

I believe the Colorado Democratic Senator cast his vote against war. So my participation perhaps ended when he got elected, and then his ilk against washington decided to go for it. I could not personally fund the troops. I find flag waving meaningless. I did not know which families had sent their brave kin to war, and if I did, I personally do not have too many resources to do much fo them.

So after you have participated in an election, what can you do support the troops at the start of a war?
Now, however, I can organize a fund raiser or dinner for injured veterans returning from the war.

The sticker just seemed to say “Hey you war-non-supporter, Support this Fucking War”

Well, that too me, becoems the most unpatriotic bumber sticker EVER.
eltay June 30th, 2008 3:00 pm

“Harsh to say, but the American military cares nothing for the individuals who comprise it, only for the mission those individuals, in formation, can accomplish.”
++++++++
This is no different than how the American business world views the individuals who comprise the corporate work force. I have worked in Fortune 500 corporations since 1980. In that nearly 30 year period, I have witnessed first hand, how corporations (non-human persons) have come to treat employees and customers (actual human beings) as if they were virtual persons as well — mere concepts that are valued only to the extent they can cost-effectively accomplish the goals of the corporation. As a result, the whole concept of individual human tragedy is not just devalued, but is deleted from our social and economic policy.

Granted, the impact on our soldiers is more urgent than the impact on vast numbers of employees. However, the basic underlying pathology is the same and rises from the same societal ground — our failure as a culture to remember that all human activity must be done with its human impact in mind.
Thomas More June 30th, 2008 3:05 pm

arcing28 June 30th, 2008 2:12 pm

Its a disgrace. Deploying 5o year old Sergaent’s means we are at the depths. It’s unforgivable, especially from the reserves. Lets send an active duty from Germany, Korea or Japan and let him stay home.

I was going to argue with you about your description of GWB’s leadership ability, but if you really think he’s as good as you said, I won’t. I would have used Cub Scout though.

ZeroPointField June 30th, 2008 2:43 pm
“When you see the Sticker “Support Our Troops”, what does it mean to you?”

It means to me that no matter how you feel about the war, you support and do anything you can for the guys and gals that have to go. Like the 50 year old above. You can hate the government, you can have nothing but contempt for the misuse of these fine soldiers, contempt for GWB, Dick Vader Rumdum and the rest, but you always, always give your support to those serving.

That you never again let the disgraceful treatment of Vets coming back happen again.

For me, that bumper sticker has nothing to do with the war.
ladybug June 30th, 2008 3:08 pm

Happy 4th of July America!!! And most of you are oblivious to this sickness
AFSC June 30th, 2008 3:46 pm

Veteran suicide is yet another cost of war that is not factored into official estimates and has not yet made its way into the public consciousness. The American Friends Service Committee recently started a touring exhibit that displays empty white combat boots to represent the Iraq War suicide deaths alongside the already-touring Eyes Wide Open exhibit, which features black boots to represent combat deaths and civilian shoes for Iraqis killed. Regardless of how official tallies classify these victims, whether they died in Iraq or back home, from physical wounds or mental anguish, they are all casualties of the war and should be recognized as such.
heav y runner June 30th, 2008 4:01 pm

Can it possibly be true that after 5 years of war that there are zero Missing in Action?

This has to be a cover up.
willybill June 30th, 2008 4:14 pm

Why hasn’t a wartime president ever taken his life? Hint! Hint!

It would save the world so much money and time.
st john June 30th, 2008 5:22 pm

I have wondered the same thing: heav y runner June 30th, 2008 4:01 pm
I wonder what kind of treatment is afforded our MIA, and what position we could legitimately take against their torture and extreme interrogation techniques?
Perhaps “the enemy” does not want to take prisoners as they would just be a burden on their ability to move, and take up valuable resources, i.e. food, water and space. Since the U.S. does not honor the “rights” of “enemy combatants” to a fair and speedy trial, and holds said combatants without charges or trial, killing a prisoner would not be any more dangerous to the captors than treating them under Geneva Conventions. Same penalty, so might as well kill them and save the cost of holding them. “We don’t negotiate with terrorists,” so there is no advantage in holding hostages. Kill them and leave them for their buddies to return in honor.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john
bottle June 30th, 2008 5:56 pm

The self-deception of our leaders mirrors not only that of their followers but of all those who refuse to recognize intolerable situation when it occurs.

We’re so lazy. The 56 per cent of us who oppose torture can’t be bothered to convince the 44 per cent who support it of the benightedness of their ways.

The people who supposedly are more enlightened than the Bush administration can’t be bothered with impeachment when the case supporting this action is most compelling in American history.

The soldiers who joined the war couldn’t be bothered to educate themselves about it beforehand or they wouldn’t have signed up.

The people who cast a blind eye on soldier suicide cast a blind eye on soldier indiscriminate shooting and bombing of innocents– in fact, cast a blind eye in all directions about anything.

When one considers intolerable fixes we’ve been in since the founding of our country; e.g., the rockets aimed at us from Cuba in the early sixties, one finds great lack of resolve.

American lack of resolve was the reason Stanley Kubrick used humor in the movie “Dr. Strangelove.” Did it work? I think so.

Could someone write a book or make a film that was similar now? I’m afraid not. Bush is such a satire of himself that no other person could do the job.

American history is parallel to ancient Roman history.

Both go downhill.
Siouxrose June 30th, 2008 6:16 pm

St JOHN (1:43), TSS, & ELTAY: Excellent posts. (You leave me nothing to add!)
Turce June 30th, 2008 6:48 pm

18 suicides/day, 1000 suicide attempts/month, over 1/4 MN waiting for VA bennies. It is the ultimate tragedy this Murderer in Chief has done this to our sons and daughters.
http://hatingthehill.blogspot.com
Videos that tell you something about these boys no more need…
shakker June 30th, 2008 7:03 pm

The unfortunate truth is that potentially suicidal soldiers and veterans dead or alive are no longer useful as cannon fodder. They are therefore just shit to be flushed.
Ronald White June 30th, 2008 9:32 pm

“They are therefore just shit to be flushed.” When all adolescent Americans both male and female , finally figure that out , maybe they won’t be so keen to join up and the American military like the Roman military will cease to exist to which news the world gave three rousing cheers.
Samson June 30th, 2008 10:21 pm

One of Hitler’s principles was to keep the ‘home front’ isolated from the war. Keep them happy, working along, and don’t let them see the horror of war nor the true costs.

The last thing the Pentagon and the corporate media are going to do is to highlight what this war really costs. They keep a little list of officially approved ‘combat deaths’ and they keep as many names off that list as possible.
Thomas More June 30th, 2008 10:31 pm

Ronald White June 30th, 2008 9:32 pm

Is there really any body else like this disgraceful excuse for excrement that agrees with it? Nows the time to speak up.
greenerthanthou June 30th, 2008 10:37 pm

Sat night the local news channel reported the death of an Iraqi vet. It was a motorcycle “accident”. They reported it straight.

Police clocked him at 78 mph, then 130 mph, then he hit a car and was killed. He had just completed his third tour in Iraq.

This will not be listed as a suicide, but, I believe that it was.
foreverhippie June 30th, 2008 11:40 pm

in Vietnam the ‘rule’ was for every 1 KIA there would be 3 WIA and 5 psych casualties

it appears that this time it is going to be 1:10:100 how many poor souls will be tortured fOr the rest of their lives?

TOO DAMN MANY

I HAVE NO ANSWERS, ONLY OBSERVATIONS AND DESPAIR
visitor July 1st, 2008 2:25 am

One eye blind to suicide, the other to murder.
We behold the beast.
It can not behold itself.
willybill July 1st, 2008 9:30 am

Siouxrose June 30th, 2008 6:16 pm ..Who gives a crap!
Ephraim July 1st, 2008 10:27 am

This country won’t be able to atone for what it’s done to Iraq, not to mention all the other horrors the Bush administration has visited upon the world, for 200 years (or name your own time period). We’re karmic toast, our sins and transgressions so grave as to be forgiveable by no human society or culture. Carroll’s point, that “for Americans plunged into the heart of this contradiction, the unbridled violence of their own nation points to the suicide of the very species,” suggests that the Bush insanity we’ve never been able to eradicate has been so profound that we’ve instigated species suicide. How can any people ever hope to get past that, or be forgiven for it, even by anyone’s notion of a supreme being? Bush and Cheney sent this country to hell, and now we’re all the inhabitants, having been paralyzed for 7 tortured years to remove this pestilence from our midst. Send your thank-yous to Pelosi, Reid and all their submissive company.
peaceman July 1st, 2008 10:38 am

willybil: You can do much better than that. I’m surprised at you.

Interesting posts by all, and better critique of this serious problem by you CD’ers than you’ll find in newspaper coverage.

With the most corrupt, deceitful, and morally bankrupt administration this nation has ever created (yes, created by we the people) so many of you still ask why our fellow citizens are willing to lay down life, limb, and consciousness for the two spineless derelicts in the White House and the gangsters they serve. MONEY! A guaranteed paycheck with benefits and a terrific pension. Recruitment bonuses, reenlistment bonuses, and of course, job security. No lay-offs, down-sizing, off-shored job loses, pay-cuts, pension reductions, etc. That is the bottom line. All the talk about patriotism and protecting our freedom (from what?) and the standard jingoism which works well in most countries for common working people to do the bidding of the ruling-class would go out the door if the big bucks weren’t there, contrary to popular belief. War is racketeering on a national level. One group of thugs trying to take other another group of thugs goods and territory for self-aggrandizement. When the common people wake up from their self-induced stupor and realize this, wars will cease and we won’t have stories about soldier’s suicides. Until then…
Ephraim July 1st, 2008 11:10 am

Yes, it is about money, from every angle anyone can imagine, which means it’s about capitalism, since that’s the system under which our money operates. But it’s also about the deliberately engineered ignorance, in our school system and the corporate media, to always have a plentiful supply of underclass, kept forever ignorant of how this corrupt system really works, to field an army that fights these illegal “wars.” Most of the soldiers we “support” with our bumper sticker jingoism are from the very poorest economic class, so the financial payoff dangled before them that peaceman correctly emphasizes as the reason they enlist in the first place, is central to the devious plan behind all the murder and mayhem the Bush thugs contrived to get their war for oil privateers. Keep millions of people dirt poor and barely literate, if at all, and you’ll always have a “standing army” ready to die for your power and wealth. The poor and illiterate, or semi-literate, are easily brainwashed into believing they’re doing something patriotic when all they’re actually doing is killing people equally or more disenfranchised than they are. And destroying their country. All to benefit a small cabal of American psychos.
Thomas More July 1st, 2008 11:16 am

willybill July 1st, 2008 9:30 am
Siouxrose June 30th, 2008 6:16 pm ..Who gives a crap!

I do.

peaceman July 1st, 2008 10:38 am

You are partially correct. Many join for the money and benefits, others as a way out of where they are. Others join because of the patriotism you don’t think much of. As some of the others see more of the world, they understand more about patriotism and freedom, what we have. Some don’t.

Against what? Remove that protection and you would soon find out. What we have is not a right or a free gift. But I respect your different opinion and just ask that you respect those that got the right to express it for you.

I am very glad to learn there aren’t a lot of callow cowards on CD.

Pax
papercut July 1st, 2008 11:26 am

“As America has steadily averted its gaze from the actualities of its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so, too, has the nation refused to look at what is happening to those it sends to fight.”
nobody is ’sent to fight’! the gi’s volunteer and look forward to killing some haji’s. the gi’s are murderous thugs who can’t wait to pull the triger. true, a very tiny percentage of gi’s become posessed of a rudimentary moral conscience which allows them to gets some idea of the death and pain and destruction they have cause other humans in iraq. but by the time the moral conscience comes around it is too late; there is no moral justification for the death of even one iraqi by an american, NO MORAL JUSTIFICATION. only the psychopath can live with what they have done in iraq and else where. most gi’s are happy to kill women and kids.
Siouxrose July 1st, 2008 11:29 am

Some people are very threatened by the holistic nature of spirituality for it transcends all the linguistic rabblerousing about enemies, and who is right/wrong. It’s about ultimate inclusion.

EPHRAIM: Excellent post.

Thomas MORE: Thank you for your chivalry.
Little Brother July 1st, 2008 2:05 pm

Ironically, just yesterday there was a local news report of a Special Forces soldier who is now blind, but is as gung-ho as ever and is remaining on active duty.

I admit that I couldn’t be bothered reading the details; the general thrust of the story seemed to be that his attitude was admirable– he was making win-win lemonade out of being blinded, or something like that.

I have run across references to a New, Improved psychology which encourages injured and disabled military personnel to return to active duty with their units. It makes a ghastly kind of “sense”, in a superficial way– the idea is that wounded soldiers are prone to suffer from psychological disorders compounded by things like survivors’ guilt, feeling alienated and depressed by abruptly being removed from one’s “buddies” in the field, an absence of meaningful structure and goals, etc.

Screwing a few new parts on and returning the soldier to combat, on the other hand, gives the gung-ho soldier something to look forward to! That’s really what they’re saying, even though it sounds more plausible when it’s translated into psychobabble.

Good luck to the blind dude, of course, and I hope he doesn’t trip over his shoelaces and break his neck or anything.

Talk about the blind leading the blind!
peaceman July 1st, 2008 2:10 pm

Ephraim: Right on! You said it well.

Thomas More: With due respect for your opinions and belief systems, I must ask you when you make a statement assuming you know anything about my beliefs. You say, “Others join because of the patriotism you don’t think much of.” What do you know about my “patriotism” Mr. More? I would describe my patriotism more like the one described by Howard Zinn on CD last year. Just so you know. And I don’t have to tell you a thing, but I did, so you understand my position, which is worth nothing to anybody except myself.

“Against what? Remove that protection and you would soon find out.” I beg to differ, Mr. More. There is a big difference between protecting one’s country from foreign invaders and invading foreign nations to kill, plunder, and dominate. This, by the way, is the point I want to make. If I follow your logic on patriotism, then every kami-kazi pilot dedicating their lives for the supreme patriotic act should have been awarded Japan’s equivalent of the Medal of Honor. They loved their country! The Italians wised up early on in WW2 and turned on Mussolini, and the generals captured him, imprisoning I’l Duce’ on a mountain top jail. The brave and daring German paratroopers who rescued him shoul have been given the Iron Cross for bravery on the field of battle. They were patriots who loved their country and risked their lives for the Fuher’s buddy. I can continue going back in time but I hope my point is understood.

We can rationalize and defend our positions on anything we do or say, but it doesn’t make it right, Thomas. And I believe your intentions are noble. But a callow coward? You don’t know me, sir. If you want to call anyone a coward, start with Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al.
Thomas More July 1st, 2008 5:42 pm

peaceman July 1st, 2008 2:10 pm

Oops! As some here can tell you I sometimes stumble over my own tongue.

” but I did, so you understand my position, which is worth nothing to anybody except myself.”

I reread the context of the paragraph I got that from ““Others join because of the patriotism you don’t think much of.” and you are exactly correct. I owe you my humble apology for that one.

Your point is correct about defending ones country rather than attacking another unprovoked.

“Against what? Remove that protection and you would soon find out.” I beg to differ, Mr. More. There is a big difference between protecting one’s country from foreign invaders and invading foreign nations”

My point was that if you removed the military we would be in big trouble quite quickly. A very valid point. Problem is thats not what you said.

The whole problem here seems to be I either transposed somebody else’s post with your name or I may just be stupid. Tailcap, Frank, Siouxrose and some others can assure you I sometimes am. Lets take stupid. I truly don’t have another explanation.

Two other things……

“And I don’t have to tell you a thing, but I did, so you understand my position, which is worth nothing to anybody except myself.”

This is just not true. I disagree with many here and they disagree right back, but their positions are valued as much by me as them. And thats true of most people here I think. So at last, this time I’m right on something here! Your position and thoughts are worth quite a lot.

“But a callow coward? You don’t know me, sir. If you want to call anyone a coward, start with Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al.”

Mia Culpa. That wasn’t meant for you at all. I should have drawn a line or something, I was referring to two posts by Ronald White in which he said all our soldiers were shit and he hoped they would die and one above that said “They are therefore just shit to be flushed.”

I posted…

“Is there really any body else like this disgraceful excuse for excrement that agrees with it? Nows the time to speak up.”

No one else agreed with him and thats where the
“I am very glad to learn there aren’t a lot of callow cowards on CD.”

Certainly not meant for you. I was just trying to say that I was glad this was a lone little childish coward.

I am distressed to think I caused you to think someone thought that and the someone was me. I humbly beg your pardon and apologize every way you can think of.

But one last thing sir,
“If you want to call anyone a coward, start with Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al.”

I will not be making any mistake here and can happily say without a doubt in my mind that all you mentioned are cowards, self proven in two different decades.

Pax
peaceman July 1st, 2008 7:14 pm

Thomas More: Now it is my turn to apologize to you for a misunderstanding on my part. I hadn’t read the other article from Tom Dispatch until minutes before I posted my comments. I read your comments on CD and you need not apologize to anyone. You very well know the score. Thomas, the reason I defended Ronald White is, (and I could be wrong) his utmost frustration by the willingness of our fellow citizens to kill, maim, torture, rape, kidnap, and loot others around the world for the Bush/Cheney band of international racketeers. I see Ron’s anger more as a plea for unity to stop the violence rather than a death wish on our military forces and how they are being used.

I make more mistakes than I care to admit to, so don’t feel bad at all. You said nothing wrong, sir. If anything, you are quite a gentleman, and this is the correct way to settle disputes. Not with fisticuffs, machine guns or atomic bombs. (we really had no dispute with each other)

So, Mr. More, I thank you for an intelligent reply and I am sorry for any distress I caused you because I didn’t read between the lines.

Pax, likewise

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven’t registered yet, click here to register. (It’s quick, easy and free. And we won’t give your email address to anyone.)

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE