People, Not Politicians, Will End the War in Iraq

Anti-War Soldier Jonathan Hutto:
People, Not Politicians, Will End the War in Iraq

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/89221/?ses=76eb0595ec19edee57a3993e70e46874

By Liliana Segura, AlterNet. Posted June 25, 2008.

The author of Antiwar Soldier discusses the GI movement, the election
and why "the military needs racism" to fight its wars.
--

Active-duty sailor Jonathan Hutto signed up to join the Navy in
December 2003, at the age of 26. Previously a college activist
fighting police brutality in Washington, D.C., and later an organizer
with the ACLU, he was not the sort of recruit one usually imagines
enlisting in the U.S. military. But his experience as an activist
would serve him well as he began to protest unjust practices within
the armed forces, where almost from the start, he battled
institutional racism and the unwillingness of the chain of command to
punish it, while also fighting oppressive and arbitrary disciplinary
practices by his commanding officers. In 2006, he co-founded Appeal
for Redress, one of the only active-duty anti-war groups since
Vietnam, devoted to ending the war in Iraq.

The appeal itself is three sentences long:

As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I
respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the
prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from
Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is
time for U.S. troops to come home.

According to Hutto, more than 2,000 military personnel, 60 percent of
whom have served in Iraq, have signed the appeal.

This month, Nation Books published Hutto's book, Antiwar Soldier: How
to Dissent Within the Ranks of the Military. Part military memoir,
part training manual, it lays out crucial things a soldier needs to
know before resisting. The preface was written by David Cortright,
whose 1975 book, Soldiers in Revolt, is considered the definitive
chronicle of the Vietnam GI movement. With the Iraq occupation in its
sixth year and no real end in sight, Antiwar Soldier comes at a
critical time, and a moment where, increasingly, veterans and
soldiers are revitalizing the anti-war movement.

AlterNet staff writer Liliana Segura recently exchanged e-mails with
Hutto, who discussed, among other topics, why he joined the military;
why he does not support a candidate for president; and what comes
next for the anti-war movement.

Liliana Segura: You were raised in a left-leaning, politically
conscious household and were an activist in college. Plus, in the
book you describe how your mother used to chase away military
recruiters from the house. Did you ever think you'd join the military?

Jonathan Hutto: No not at all. Nothing in my background or history
would have supported me making such a move. The military was not
represented as a proud tradition in my community, given the military
was segregated until the early 1950s, with blacks still experiencing
severe racism and repression throughout the Vietnam conflict. Both of
my parents were born in a segregated/apartheid South, which shaped
and informed my world view.

LS: Why did you choose the Navy?

JH: My mom was the primary reason for my decision. I was looking at
the military at the age of 26, purely for economic and social
adjustment reasons. One of the primary motivators was paying off a
substantial portion of my student loan debt, which was $48,000, in
the fall of 2003. Today, my loans stand at $24,000. I've always
envisioned myself working toward advanced higher education, so the GI
Bill was also seen as an incentive. My mom lobbied for me to look at
the Navy, given the risk associated with service in the Army and
Marines -- plus I had two uncles that were veterans of the Air Force,
one during the Korean conflict. The Iraq War was barely a year old
when I decided to enlist.

LS: What surprised you the most about the Navy?

JH: I guess the word is "shocking" and not so much "surprising."
Nothing really surprised me; however, it was shock treatment to be
exposed to the depths of internalized racism and imperialism. I
vividly remember an instructor at boot camp speaking on the virtues
of Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee in 1964 that ran on an
anti-Civil Rights platform. I remember seeing the Confederate flag as
one of the many flags we marched under. Although I have seen that
flag many times in my life, this is the first time I had to endure it
from an institutionalized setting. Then I remember battle stations,
the last phase of boot camp. This is when you stay up 24 hours
completing different battle scenarios on a ship, in combat, in water,
etc. I can remember the instructors giving these heroic war stories,
many of these stories coming directly from the Vietnam conflict. Much
of this ran counter to my core belief system. You can imagine how
deep the shock treatment was, given that one of my first experiences
leaving home in 1995 was standing in front of Frederick Douglass
Memorial Hall, named in honor of the late great abolitionist on
Howard University's campus, for a student rally.

LS: You describe racism as one of your central grievances regarding
the culture of the military. Can you elaborate on this? How much do
you think it informs U.S. military policy on a larger scale?

JH: The major motivation for the U.S. ruling class missions abroad is
hegemony, power and leverage over its rivals such as Russia, Japan,
China, Iran and countries in Latin America such as Venezuela. The
Iraq War is based on the Carter doctrine, named for former U.S.
President Jimmy Carter. In his 1980 State of the Union address,
Carter stated that any attempt by any outside force to gain control
of the Persian Gulf region would be regarded as an assault on the
vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault
would be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
This global imperial ideology requires racism, religious intolerance
and xenophobia to justify the mission to the masses of the people,
especially those within the working class and margins of society
needed to bleed and die in these missions. Hence anti-Arab racism is
used as a justifying ideology, along with an anti-Islamic ideology,
both in terms of religion and culture.

The military needs racism, both formally and informally, as an
inherent part of the indoctrination process, especially in boot camp,
because dehumanizing the "enemy" is necessary for GIs to be fighters
for the mission. To be an effective killer, you must see the other
side as less than human. During Vietnam, soldiers, sailors and
Marines were taught to see Vietnamese as gooks. During this current
conflict, soldiers are taught to see Iraqis as Hajjis.

Although the military has made great strides to eradicate
institutionalized racism organizationally, with more people of color
and women within the senior enlisted ranks and officer ranks, the
ideology of white racism is still prevalent within the culture. My
first experience with white racism came at apprentice school,
post-boot camp, for using the term "affirmative action" in my
introduction to the class. All of us were asked why we joined the
military by our instructors. I basically stated that I viewed the
military as the best affirmative action employer in the country. Post
my giving this statement, I was targeted severely by these
instructors. I was told later it was due to my use of the phrase
"affirmative action." My worst experience with white racism would be
having a noose paraded before my face by three noncommissioned white
male officers. The noose incident was the culmination of other
incidents such as some white male non-commissioned officers making
mockery of Dr. King's holiday.

LS: Your book -- and your movement -- is very historically rooted. Is
the average soldier as conscious of U.S. military history, including
the GI resistance movement?

JH: Unfortunately, no -- although many in the ranks do receive the
stories from their relatives that fought in Vietnam. The public
educational institutions in this country, coupled with boot camp, are
not designed to give the rank-and-file soldier the proper U.S.
military history or any notion that there was ever a movement of GIs
within the enlisted ranks. The purpose of boot camp is to break you
down and build you back up as a loyal servant with less capacity to
think for yourself. However, the Appeal for Redress and Iraq Veterans
Against the War (IVAW) are demonstrating another kind of education
taking place. Like Ron Kovic a generation ago, the Vietnam veteran
turned peace activist and author of Born on the Fourth of July, these
Iraq veterans are receiving an education on the ground in Iraq and
within the complex that is changing hearts and minds every day. The
movement will continue to grow.

LS: In a recent interview, you said the biggest challenge confronting
the anti-war movement as a whole "is to build a culture of
operational unity," and you mentioned the National Assembly to End
the Iraq War in Cleveland, Ohio, next weekend. What is the assembly,
who will be there, and what are the goals?

JH: The National Assembly to End the Iraq War, gathering in
Cleveland, Ohio, from June 27 to 29, is a strong attempt to bring
together all elements of the anti-war movement from every
constituency within the country. The major mass organizations
including United for Peace and Justice (UPFJ), the Act Now to Stop
War and End Racism (ANSWER) coalition and the Troops Out Now
Coalition will all be present in Cleveland. The mission is to build
an open … anti-war conference with the capacity and unity to build
the largest mass mobilization against the war since 2003. This
conference will also include proposals for local mobilizations before
and after the November election. The conference is based on five
principles, which are: 1. immediate withdrawal of all troops and
bases from Iraq, 2. mass demonstrations as the central strategy, 3.
unity of the movement in the streets, 4. democratic decision-making
and 5. independence of the movement from all political parties.

LS: Do you support a particular candidate in the 2008 election?

JH:I do not support a particular candidate for president. I was
unprincipled in flirting with the idea of Ron Paul, being that he was
the only anti-war candidate within the Republican Party, which I felt
was strategic, only to be propelled back to my progressive roots
based on his "Ron Paul Letters," which confirmed him as a staunch
racist and anti-Semite.

I do not support a particular candidate and party because I believe
the power resides within the people, not the politicians, toward
ending this war in Iraq, curtailing other imperialist wars of
aggression and building a better, just world. John McCain and Barack
Obama are both committed to continuing the Iraq War, with potential
future military missions in Pakistan and Iran. Obama is the greatest
threat to our movement since JFK and arguably since FDR. He can do
what John McCain cannot do, which is motivate our young to serve as
cannon fodder for U.S. wars abroad while motivating working people in
general to sacrifice for the preservation of corporate power at their
own expense. Obama does not seek to end the Iraq occupation. His
current plan would leave up to 200,000 troops in Iraq with no call at
all for U.S. corporate interests to leave. The anti-war movement a
generation ago could not depend on the likes of Johnson and Nixon to
end the Vietnam conflict; the masses had to bring pressure. This is
our challenge today.

LS: Your book is very much a how-to guide to dissenting within the
ranks. How have people responded to this inside and outside the armed
forces? What did you risk by writing it -- and by forming Appeal for
Redress as an active-duty member?

JH: The response from my colleagues within the Navy has been
enormous. I am asked off base consistently for copies of the book,
which I respond to consistently. The Appeal for Redress has sent out
a little over 100 copies to active duty across the U.S., including
some stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Amazon has been my only
consistent indicator for how we are doing outside the military. We
have consistently been in the top 100 in areas dealing with Iraq,
human rights and race issues.

In terms of risk, one would think I risked being marginalized further
within the ranks. I mentioned earlier the noose incident, which took
place prior to us forming the Appeal for Redress. I certainly endured
minor reprisals during that struggle against the noose in my shop,
which I document in Antiwar Soldier. However, once we went public
with the appeal, the chain of command has been hands-off, with the
exception of the public affairs officer of my ship informing me of my
First Amendment rights as a sailor occasionally. This hands-off
approach is a validation of Frederick Douglass' pronouncement 150
years ago when he stated, "The limits of tyrants are prescribed by
the endurance of those they oppress." It means that oftentimes,
oppressive conditions persist due to the endurance of the victim.
Only consistent agitation and a demand for basic dignity can help to
change an oppressive environment and situation.

LS: What has been your biggest victory thus far with Appeal for Redress?

JH: First, demonstrating there is a base within the armed forces
opposed to this war. It helps to dispel the myth that everyone within
the military is monolithic and supports the mission 100 percent.
Simply because one takes an oath to defend the Constitution does not
mean they have sacrificed their rights embodied within that document.

Second, the appeal being a conduit through which active-duty (troops)
get involved within the broader anti-war struggle such as Iraq
Veterans Against the War. Liam Madden, co-founder of the appeal,
currently serves on IVAW's board of directors.

LS: What are you doing next?

We're going to continue to push the Appeal for Redress and Antiwar
Soldier to all active-duty, reserve and guard troops. I'll continue
to work within the mass movement through the National Assembly to End
the Iraq War. The National Assembly speaks directly to my core
beliefs and gives me the opportunity to work with everyone laboring
to bring the troops home. I'll probably remain within the complex for
at least another three to four years at minimum, although I keep all
my options open. No matter where I am, whether that is within the
complex or teaching in a high school or college classroom, I'll
remain steadfast and committed to bringing about social justice and
transforming this society from being thing-oriented to being
people-based. Kwame Ture (aka Stokley Carmichael) taught us at Howard
that the struggle is eternal and our people, those on the margins,
are going to need us to do until we die. Therefore, we are committed
to eternal struggle.

.

Alabama soldier refuses deployment to Iraq

Alabama soldier refuses deployment to Iraq

http://www.examiner.com/a-1448120~Alabama_soldier_refuses_deployment_to_Iraq.html

Jun 18, 2008
By BEN EVANS, AP

An Army sergeant from Alabama who is refusing to deploy to Iraq says
the war is illegal and that he stands ready to defend himself against
a court-martial if it comes to that.

Matthis Chiroux, who grew up in Auburn and enlisted in the Army
immediately after graduating from Auburn High School, is one of
thousands of Individual Ready Reserve troops recalled to combat after
being honorably discharged from active duty.

He was told in February he would be sent to Iraq and was expected to
report to Fort Jackson, S.C., by midnight Sunday. Instead, he is in
the nation's capital speaking out against the war and lining up
support from like-minded members of Congress.

Chiroux, 24, said in an interview Wednesday that he would have
readily agreed to deploy to the war in Afghanistan, which he
considers a legal conflict with moral justification. But he calls the
war in Iraq an illegal occupation based on false premises. He argues
he would be breaking the law by participating.

So far, Chiroux has not heard from the Army. He said the prospect of
going to prison concerns him and knows that speaking out in
Washington makes his absence more conspicuous. But he said he wanted
to announce his decision publicly because he did not feel comfortable
keeping it to himself and hoping to avoid detection.

"I have just come to the point where I have the strength to stand for
what I know is right," said Chiroux, who now lives in Brooklyn and is
traveling to Huntsville next week for his sister's wedding. "I feel
like it's my responsibility as a soldier and keeping with the higher
values of this nation to oppose this ... I'm not going anywhere. They
know where to find me."

After enlisting in 2002, Chiroux served nearly five years as a public
affairs specialist and photojournalist in Afghanistan, Japan, Europe
and the Philippines.

He was honorably discharged from active duty last July and placed on
Individual Ready Reserve, an inactive status during which soldiers
don't train or draw a paycheck but are subject to being called back
to service. IRR troops are called up only in times of war or
emergency, and with the five-year war in Iraq straining active-duty
forces, the Army has been deploying them regularly in recent years.

Maj. Maria Quon, an Army spokeswoman, said some 16,000 IRR troops
have been recalled since Sept. 11, 2001. More than 6,000 have been
granted deferments or exemptions, while about 700 have failed to report.

About half of those who failed to report are still under
investigation, while 317 were separated from the Army either through
"other than honorable" discharges or general discharges. While other
deserting soldiers have faced court-martial, none of the IRR troops
has, Quon said.

"Everyone who joins the Army volunteers to join the Army," said Lt.
Col. Anne Edgecomb, another Army spokeswoman. "The reason we have the
IRR is in a time of need we can come back and call on you."

Chiroux's father, Robert Chiroux, a Huntsville aerospace engineer who
described himself as a conservative Republican, said he hasn't
decided whether he agrees with his son about the war.

But he said he is proud of his son's willingness to stand up for his
beliefs, and as a Navy veteran is disappointed in how the Bush
administration has used troops in Iraq.

If the military is in such dire condition that veterans must be
repeatedly deployed, the father said, the government should resume
the draft - a move that would truly gauge the public's appetite for the war.

"There are a lot of very courageous men and women who are being
overused in Iraq," he said. "The draft would seriously raise the
conscience level about the war."

.

Deserter awaiting court-martial at Fort Knox

Deserter awaiting court-martial at Fort Knox

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080621/NEWS01/306210002/1008

Number of cases growing in Army

By Chris Kenning • ckenning@courier-journal.com • June 21, 2008

In a nondescript barracks at Fort Knox, Pfc. James Burmeister awaits
his fate for deserting his unit while on leave from Iraq.

The 22-year-old is set to face a court-martial at the Kentucky post
-- one of only two U.S. processing centers for Army deserters.

Now his mother, Helen Burmeister, is doing everything she can to keep
her son out of jail. She will demonstrate outside the post today in
hopes of persuading the military to let her take her son home.

"I'm hoping to take him back to Oregon with me," said Burmeister, who
says her son struggles with post-traumatic stress, injuries from a
roadside bomb and questions about U.S. tactics. "He needs to get all
this behind him."

Burmeister is among the 4,698 U.S. Army soldiers who deserted in
fiscal year 2007, a number that risen 92 percent since 2004.

Army officials say they can't pinpoint the cause of the increase, but
they don't believe it results from mounting disillusionment with the
war in Iraq. They say desertions still represent less than 1 percent
of its force.

While prosecutions are rare, they have increased slightly since the
1990s -- partly because the offense is viewed more seriously during a
time of war, officials said.

"Our leadership is concerned about desertion rates," said Lt. Col.
Anne Edgecomb, an Army spokeswoman, "but not to the point we've taken
drastic measures."

Many people who desert -- roughly defined as being absent without
leave for more than 30 days with the intent to stay away -- are
junior soldiers who leave after basic training for family problems,
while others are combat veterans or those who object to the war, officials say.

Punishments vary

Army officials don't actively pursue them, arguing they're too busy
fighting a war. Most deserters turn themselves in to remove the
felony warrant that is issued, or are caught during routine traffic stops.

The consequences vary. They can be as light as a reprimand and return
to their unit, or as harsh as a court-martial resulting in a
bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge that results in up to five years in jail.

Most get an "other than honorable" administrative discharge.

Last year, the Army convicted 108 soldiers of desertion. The decision
of whether to prosecute is often left to unit commanders.

"If a soldier deserts his unit two weeks before going to Iraq, you've
got a hole -- a fire team with one guy short," Edgecomb said. "That's
more serious than someone leaving the Army before they actually were
assigned to their unit."

Soldiers who have gone AWOL or deserted -- the vast majority do so in
the United States, not while overseas -- are processed through either
Fort Knox or Fort Sill, Okla.

Fort Knox officials wouldn't provide numbers, but it's likely that 40
to 60 soldiers accused of desertion pass through the Kentucky post
each week, said J.E. McNeil, director of the Center on Conscience and
War, a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C., that helps those on
deserter status.

While there, they live in barracks with soldiers in similar trouble,
working patrol or cleaning duty and meeting with their military and
private attorneys. They are confined to base but nothing prevents
them from leaving, military officials say. "The point is you're there
(so you can) get on with your life," McNeil said.

Fort Knox spokesman Ryan Brus declined to discuss Burmeister's case,
but confirmed that he was charged with "desertion with intent to
shirk important service." If convicted, he could receive a reduction
in rank to private, forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for a
year, 12 months of confinement and a bad-conduct discharge.

Even if he is simply discharged, "he's worried he'll lose his
benefits, but at this point, it's not worth it," Helen Burmeister said.

Burmeister was unavailable for comment, and the military would not
discuss his service history or any medical issues. But his mother and
friends said in interviews he joined the Army in 2005, hoping to help
rebuild Iraq. Once there, he found himself manning a machine gun atop a Humvee.

He was disturbed by tactics that he told his family included a
baiting operation designed to lure insurgents, an approach detailed
in articles by The New York Times and Washington Post in 2007. The
Army has said it doesn't discuss specific methods.

In February 2007, while assigned to the 18th Infantry Division in
Iraq, his Humvee was hit by a roadside bomb. He suffered shrapnel to
his face and hearing loss.

Deciding to desert

While on recovery leave in Germany, he decided to fly to Canada
instead of returning to duty in Iraq.

"He was just a regular young guy who was shaken up, and didn't know
what to do," Sonia Vani, a Canadian friend of Burmeister, said in a
telephone interview from Ottawa. She said he was diagnosed with
post-traumatic stress disorder and had a seizure, possibly from a brain injury.

But he eventually decided to return, and since March, he's been at
Fort Knox. Earlier this week, his mother came from Oregon in hopes of
persuading the Army to grant him an administrative discharge with a
loss of benefits, but so far the Army hasn't granted that request.

"He did go to war, did what he was asked, now it's time to let him
go," Helen Burmeister said.

Anita Anderson of Lexington, an activist who helps deserters, said
many young men who deserted have jobs and a new life and were
apparently never reported as deserters.

Her son, Darrell Anderson, went AWOL in 2005 after deciding he
couldn't continue to fight without killing innocent civilians. In
2006, he returned after 20 months in Canada and turned himself in at
Fort Knox. He was given a less-than-honorable discharge with a loss
of benefits.

Since then, he has worked as a security guard in Oregon and a busboy
in California and now works at a grocery store in Lexington. He still
struggles with post-traumatic stress, but said he doesn't regret his
decision to go AWOL.

"It wasn't the easy choice, it was the hard choice," he said. "I lost
my GI Bill, my veteran's benefits … but I did what's right, and I've
still got my pride."
--

Reporter Chris Kenning can be reached at (502) 582-4697.

.

War Opponent Refuses to Report for Duty

War Opponent Refuses to Report for Duty

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,169983,00.html

Stars and Stripes | Leo Shane III | June 17, 2008

WASHINGTON -- A former Army journalist recalled to active duty this
month refused to report to his new assignment Sunday night, citing
his opposition to the Iraq war.

Matthis Chiroux, who served five years in the Army before separating
last summer, said he expects and welcomes legal action resulting from
his refusal, calling U.S. operations in Iraq an illegal occupation.

"I don't feel like I'm doing anything illegal at all," he said. "We
basically have no cause for military presence in Iraq.

"I'm making this decision because I believe my first loyalty is to
the higher ideals of this country, which are being blatantly violated
by our leaders."

Army officials said he faces charges of failure to report and
desertion for the move, although no legal action has been taken yet.

He was scheduled to report to Task Force Marshall at Fort Jackson,
S.C., by Sunday but instead held a news conference in the nation's
capitol to confirm his intentions not to return to the Army.

Chiroux, a sergeant, served overseas at several posts during his
enlistment but spent only six days in Afghanistan and none in Iraq.

Since last August he has been attending college and working with Iraq
Veterans Against the War but was recalled from the Individual Ready
Reserve pool this year.

Two years ago, 1st Lt. Ehren Watada refused to deploy to Iraq with
his unit, citing similar opposition to the war and was
court-martialed. But a court case against him ended in a mistrial,
and charges against him are still pending.

Several other active-duty members of Iraq Veterans Against the War
have promised to leave the service or refuse to deploy if sent to
Iraq, and last month they protested on Capitol Hill to highlight what
they called an unjust occupation of Iraq. Chiroux said he is
confident that a reasonable court would not find him guilty of any wrongdoing.

"It's not about what job I'd do," he said. "Any order to deploy there
is unlawful."

.

Canada is wrong not to give asylum to U.S. war resisters

[3 items]

Canada is wrong not to give asylum to U.S. war resisters

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=d56b2525-4f1c-460d-9e0f-6e86773d2c4f

Canada accepted thousands of 'Nam dodgers but now threatens to deport
Iraq resisters

HENRY AUBIN, The Gazette
Published: Saturday, June 21

The federal government has ordered a deserter from the U.S. Army to
return to the United States by July 10. If he doesn't leave
voluntarily, the government will deport him.

Either way, Corey Glass, a former sergeant, would become the first
Iraq war resister to be booted out of Canada - thereby setting a
precedent for other U.S. war resisters who are seeking refuge in this country.

A majority of the House of Commons voted 137-110 two weeks ago in
favour of a motion urging the government to refrain from ousting war
resisters; about 100 of whom are believed to be in the Canada. All
three opposition parties supported the measure, sponsored by the New
Democrats' Olivia Chow. The Conservatives dissented.

Yet the motion seems futile. Nothing obliges Prime Minister Stephen
Harper to respect it - it's non-binding. And while polls suggest that
most Canadians support the resisters, as do such organizations as
Amnesty International and the United Church of Canada, the issue is
largely out of the public eye. This month's parliamentary motion, for
example, received scant news coverage.

This general apathy seems paradoxical. The Iraq war is, if anything,
even more unpopular among Canadians than was the Vietnam war. Tens of
thousands of U.S. draft dodgers and deserters fled to Canada during
that conflict, and the government and the public received them well.

Why shouldn't Canada be as open to resisters today as it was a
generation ago? The political answer, of course, is that Harper is
less willing to ruffle Washington's feathers than were the prime
ministers of the day, Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau.

The legal answer is that a well-founded fear of persecution is one of
the base criteria for granting refugee status, and the Immigration
and Refugee Board, the courts and Immigration Minister Diane Finley
have all rejected the resisters' claim that they would face
persecution if they returned home. I agree with Finley and company.
The U.S. military typically sentences Iraq war deserters (that is,
those who have not left the country) to jail terms that run to about
a year, and that's hardly a harrowing fate.

Yet the weakness of the persecution argument doesn't justify Canada's
rejection of the kind of people it once accepted. After all, the U.S.
didn't really persecute Vietnam war deserters either, and yet Canada
gave them asylum.

Those who want to expel the resisters make two moral arguments. Let's
look at each.

The first argument is that volunteers make up 100 per cent of today's
U.S. armed forces, which wasn't the case during 'Nam. "Why," the
National Post's Jonathan Kay asks in regard to Corey Glass, "should
Canadians help this deserter go back on his freely given word?"
That's technically true: Guys like Glass signed army contracts of
their free will. Yet they were deceived. The contractor - the U.S.
government - assured them this was a just war. The premises - that
Saddam had WMD and that he was in bed with Al-Qa'ida - turned out to be bogus.

Some deserters also claim, plausibly, that glib recruiters promised
them non-combat jobs if they signed up with the army. Wrong. More
false pretenses.

Finally, the army has called still others back into additional tours
of Iraq under the Stop-loss program. That's like a back-door draft.

Free will? Come on.

The second moral argument is that the resisters are unjustly claiming
to be conscientious objectors. Real CO's are against all wars, say
the critics, and the resisters are against only this one war.

Yet to grant asylum only to those who are against all violent
conflicts is to set the bar unreasonably high. Most soldiers don't
think in terms of absolutes. They think in terms of their own direct
experiences.

In court testimony and interviews, those resisters who have served in
Iraq suggest that the unjust war means there can be no excuse for the
horrors they have seen. That's a true show of conscience.

Critics of the resisters make one last argument, this one less moral
than practical. They say that giving asylum would be bad for troop
morale and thus undermine the U.S. war effort.

Think about that. If politicians knew that the citizenry would refuse
to fight if the reason for a war was not persuasive, they might
embark on fewer unjust wars - or, they might end such wars more
quickly, as was the case with the Vietnam conflict.

There aren't many checks and balances against military recklessness,
but easy asylum can be one of them.
--

haubin@thegazette.canwest.com

--------

Canadians Supporting U.S. War Resisters

http://pacificfreepress.com/content/view/2741/81/

Sunday, 22 June 2008

War Resisters - your chance to help the campaign

by War Resisters Support Campaign

Dear friends; the two things that we need help with most right now in
Vancouver are housing for war resisters and your participation in our
outreach and lobbying in Conservative ridings and keeping up the
media visibility.

Below is a housing appeal, please pass it on freely.

Also in Vancouver we will be doing another visit to a Conservative
riding, probably either Emerson's in Vancouver or Nina Grewal in
Fleetwood-Port Kells. That is tentatively planned for Saturday June 28.

As well, we would like to get to some Canada Day events with our
petitions and leaflets - there will be a National Day of Action to
call Immigration Minister Diane Finley on Wednesday July 2 - and July
1 would be a great day to get the word out. Please try to join us at
some of these activities!

War Resister Housing Appeal

Do you have an extra-room or a fold-out couch in your home? Do you
want to help end the war in Iraq? Would you like to see Canada, once
again, become a sanctuary for American soldiers refusing to
participate in an illegal war?

If you answered yes to the questions above, the War Resisters Support
Campaign in Vancouver needs you!

The War Resisters Support Campaign helps American soldiers who have
come to Canada seeking sanctuary. These young men and women face
imprisonment in the US because they obeyed their conscience.

They turned their backs on George Bush's war.

We need volunteers to house US war resister for a few days to a few
months, while we help them to get settled in and work their way
through the refugee immigration process.

Right now in Vancouver we are in urgent need of housing for two war resisters.

If you can house a war resister in the lower mainland, for at least
a week starting this week please contact James Leslie at
jamesleslie@telus.net or (604) 736-9804

After Friday June 20, 2008 call or email Sarah Bjorknas at
778-837-1475 or vanresisters@yahoo.ca

For more info, or to volunteer housing in other parts of BC or the
rest of Canada, please see our website www.resisters.ca

Dear Campaigners; As you know, on June 3, the House of Commons did a
pretty important thing. The MPs voted 137-110 for the War Resisters
Motion, which would make it possible for the war resisters to apply
for permanent residence in Canada, and which would stop the
deportation of any of them, including Corey Glass, whose deadline to
"leave or be removed" is now July 10.

The CBC and Newsworld, had a 7-minute report the previous Sunday
(June 1), with Terry Milewski, a prominent reporter, anchoring the
story. It was a great piece, and it mentioned that the vote would
take place on the following Tuesday.

Then, on Tuesday, NOTHING -- NADA -- ZERO -- ZILCH!

MEDIA COVERAGE NOW IS SUPER IMPORTANT IF WE ARE TO GET THE
CONSERVATIVES TO IMPLEMENT THE WAR RESISTERS MOTION.

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO DROP A LINE TO THE CBC AT
http://www.cbc.ca/contact/ AND LET THEM KNOW YOU WANT

MORE COVERAGE OF THE WAR RESISTERS ISSUE!

And by the way -- don't be shy about writing to your local media, or
to "national" media like the Globe & Mail, which has ignored the
story except for a teensy little paragraph that whispered "don't read
this" the day after the vote.

The Tories would love this issue to disappear from view. Don't let
them have their way.

PEACE,
LEE ZASLOFSKY

War Resisters Support Campaign
Vancouver
http://ca.geocities.com/vanresisters/
Tel: 778-837-1475
c/o 1143 E Pender St
Vancouver BC V6A

--------

U. S. Army deserter: Let me stay in Canada

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=592292

by Corey Glass
June 17, 2008

Recently, BBC News producers asked the National Post's Jonathan Kay
to debate Corey Glass -- a "conscientious objector" who fled U. S.
military service and now lives in Toronto -- on the question of
whether American military deserters should be sent back to the United
States. Here is the text of their exchange, as it appears on the BBC
News Web site.

In 2002, I joined the Indiana National Guard. When I joined, I was
told I would only be in combat if there were troops occupying the
United States.

I signed up to defend people and do humanitarian work filling
sandbags if there was a hurricane. I had no conception I would be
deployed to fight on foreign shores.

Through this job I had access to a lot of information about what was
happening on the ground in Iraq. I realized innocent people were
being killed unjustly and I tried to quit the military while in Iraq.
My commander told me I was stressed out and needed R&R, because I was
doing a job I was not trained to do.

I went home on leave and said I was not coming back. I was told
desertion is punishable by death. I was Absent Without Leave (AWOL)
in America for eight months.

I searched the Internet and found out about U. S. war resisters in
Canada. I arrived in Toronto two weeks later.

I should have been in New Orleans after Katrina, not in Iraq. I
believe the Iraq War is illegal and morally wrong. I believe I have a
duty to refuse to take part in a war not sanctioned by the United
Nations, started on the basis of lies.

I have been in Toronto since August, 2006. In my time here, I have
been self-sufficient and I have made many friends. I have built a life here.

Last week I was in Ottawa, when the House of Commons passed a motion
saying that the Canadian government should make it possible for
conscientious objectors to get permanent residence in Canada. The
motion also said that all deportation proceedings against us should be stopped.

But I may be deported anyway. On May 21, I was told that my last
chance to stay in Canada had failed, and I must leave by June 12
(since extended to July 10). I know that if I return to the U. S. I
will face imprisonment and possibly a criminal record.

I don't think it is fair that I should be returned to the U. S. to
face unjust punishment for doing what I felt morally obligated to do.
I am hoping that Canada, which stayed out of the Iraq War for reasons
similar to my own, will reverse the deportation order and let me
stay, as parliament has urged.

There are several dozen other war resisters like me in Canada now.
They all deserve to stay here and get on with their lives.

I hope the new American president will end the Iraq War and bring the
troops home. But until that happens, I believe it is every soldier's
right to refuse to take part in that war, if that is what his or her
conscience says they must do.

.

US Army Sergeant Matthis Chiroux Refuses to Deploy to Iraq

US Army Sergeant Matthis Chiroux Refuses to Deploy to Iraq

http://i3.democracynow.org/2008/6/17/us_army_sergeant_matthis_chiroux_refuses

Sergeant Matthis Chiroux served in the Army for five years, with
tours in Afghanistan, Japan, Germany and the Philippines. Last month,
Chiroux announced he would not deploy to Iraq. On Sunday, Father's
Day, the deadline for him to report for active duty expired.

June 17, 2008

Guest:
Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, served in the Army until being honorably
discharged last summer after over four years of service in
Afghanistan, Japan, Europe and the Philippines. On Sunday, he
publicly announced his intention to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq.
He is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War.
--

AMY GOODMAN: A US Army reservist who publicly refused to deploy to
Iraq last month may face prosecution from the military after refusing
to report for active duty with his unit in South Carolina.

Sergeant Matthis Chiroux served in the Army for five years, with
tours in Afghanistan, Japan, Germany and the Philippines. He was
honorably discharged last summer and was placed in the Individual
Ready Reserves, a pool of former soldiers who can be "reactivated"
and ordered to deploy to war.

Last month, Sergeant Chiroux announced he would not deploy to Iraq.
He made the announcement in the Capitol Hill Rotunda after members of
Iraq Veterans Against the War testified before the Congressional
Progressive Caucus during Winter Soldier on the Hill.

On Sunday, Father's Day, the deadline for Chiroux to report for
active duty expired. Chiroux now joins us from Washington, D.C.
Matthis Chiroux, welcome to Democracy Now!

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: Good morning, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: So tell us what is happening right now. When were you
supposed to deploy or report for active duty?

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: OK, I was supposed to report Sunday, Father's
Day. I did not. I was in Washington, D.C. with the Iraq Veterans
Against the War at their chapter house. I gave a short speech on the
porch of our house there, and I stood with my dad, and I kept my
promise to the military, I kept my promise to my country, to refuse
an illegal order to participate in an unlawful occupation.

AMY GOODMAN: So what happens now?

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: Well, right now it's turned into a bit of a
waiting game, as far as the military goes. You know, I made my
intentions clear, and then I followed through on them, and I'm
waiting to hear from the military.

There's no real way I can know what consequences to face here. You
know, many, many members of the Individual Ready Reserve, about
15,000 of them, have been called up since the beginning of this
occupation of Iraq, and only 7,500 of them have reported. So there's
about half there that's unaccounted for. And many of those
individuals have been ignored by the military, as they should be. It
is an illegal order to call up and deploy to Iraq. Others have been
charged with desertion. So, during a time of war, actually, desertion
can be punishable by death. So, you know, my spectrum of consequence
is in the situation range literally anywhere from nothing to death.
So I will wait faithfully in the United States, as I promised to do,
to see how the military will react.

AMY GOODMAN: Sergeant Matthis Chiroux, why did you sign up and when
did you sign up?

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: I signed up about a month after I got out of
high school. I was a very, very poor student in Auburn, Alabama. I
graduated high school with nothing more than a 2.1, no real money in
my bank account, no prospects for a good job or education. And, you
know, I joined the military primarily looking for personal progress,
though after enlisting and after spending 4th of July, you know,
three weeks before I reported for basic training here in Washington,
D.C. with my mother, I also felt proud about the fact that I would be
participating in the global war on terror, to bring to justice those
individuals who perpetrated 9/11, or the events of 9/11, anyway, on
this country. So I joined both out of a desire to pave a way forward
to a career and to university and also to spend some time serving the nation.

AMY GOODMAN: And what year was it that you signed up?

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: 2002. I was in the military from August 1,
2002­I reported to basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky­to July 31,
2007, when I was honorably discharged from Heidelberg, Germany.

AMY GOODMAN: When did you go to Iraq?

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: I've never been to Iraq, ma'am. This would have
been my first tour. Fortunately­well, by nothing more than good
fortune, my five years in the military, all after September 11th, I
was never asked to deploy to Iraq. And I'm quite thankful for that,
because I think I would have been facing a very similar situation as I am now.

I have­there has never been any lack of disgust for the Iraq
occupation on my behalf. You know, I remember quite clearly watching
the invasion while I was still in Army journalism school in Fort
Meade, Maryland. I remember watching it on my company's big screen
television and feeling entirely shocked and awed to see what was
going on at the other end of those cameras in Baghdad and know that
our actions were not sanctioned by the international community and
were, you know, coming on­at the word of a few people who were saying
Saddam Hussein is a threat. So since that time, since the invasion,
I've been against this occupation to various degrees. But
fortunately, I was never unlawfully asked to serve there until now.

AMY GOODMAN: Afghanistan?

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: Afghanistan, I went to in 2005, although only
for a very short stint. I was an Army journalist working for General
B.B. Bell at the time. He was still the commander of US Army Europe.
And we went down to catch up with a unit from Hohenfels, Germany, a
training unit that was in fact only supposed to be assisting other
soldiers who were training in Hohenfels, Germany. They had been
deployed as a non-deployable unit under the direct command of a
Romanian battalion, and I went down to Afghanistan to tell the
stories of those soldiers deployed with that unit.

But, Amy, my combat experience is very limited, and I don't want
anybody to feel like I'm trying to hide that point. I never
discharged a round in a combat zone, and I never took one, either.
But that does not make me any less qualified to determine or to
choose between, as I'm required to, a lawful and an unlawful order
and either following or refusing those orders alike.

AMY GOODMAN: Matthis Chiroux, you were a military reporter?

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: Yes, Amy, I was.

AMY GOODMAN: What did you do?

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: Well, I spent a lot of time writing stories and
taking photographs in the interest of the commands that I served.
It's a smaller career field in the Army, but it's a very highly
creative and independent field, where you spend a lot of time
producing, like I said, stories, photographs, coordinating
interviews, coordinating transportation to wind up where you need to
be to conduct your interviews and produce a story, basically just
like anything any civilian journalist would do, except at the end of
the day my duty was not as much to the truth as it was to the truth
that the Army wanted not just its soldiers to see it, but civilians
on the outside.

So, you know, for example, I once did a story about a Romanian
soldier who had been wounded in Afghanistan. He had had his leg blown
off by a mine, and I went to interview him at the hospital to produce
a really­you know, to produce a piece for the US Army Europe
quarterly magazine about basically how we, as the American Army, were
so generous by agreeing to treat a coalition soldier in a US Army
hospital. Now, this story came at quite a personal expense for me.
When I went to do it at the hospital, he was one out of about, I
believe, sixty-five men and women who had lost limbs in either
Afghanistan or Iraq, and I went to do the story about the Romanian
guy, ignoring the dozens of other American troops who had also been
suffering greatly in combat, but their stories could not make us
look, I guess, nearly as well as this Romanian guy who we were caring for.

And, you know, I'll never actually forget leaving the ward that day.
And there was a young man, couldn't have been more than nineteen
years old, lying on a gurney, and he was missing both arms and legs,
and he looked over at me, because I had the camera, and I was there
with the story, and he said, "Hey, are you a journalist?" And I said,
"Yeah, I'm from the US Army Europe, and I'm here to cover this story
about this Romanian troop right down the hall. Do you know him?" And
to which he just got really quiet and distant and looked at me and
said, "Sixty-five blue-blooded Americans on this hall, and the
journalist shows up to do the story about the Romanian. That's cold-blooded."

And I remember looking back at this young man and having­feeling like
my diaphragm was being sucked down my thighs, because what could I
tell this guy? You know, "Yes, I am here to do the happy, rosy story
about the Romanian who's getting taken care of. I'm not here to talk
to you. And­but that's my job, just as it was your job to do whatever
you were doing when you got your legs blown off." It was my job to
produce stories in the manner which my leadership told me to write
them and told me to produce them.

So, situations like that­I mean, that's a particularly poignant one
for me in my mind, but typically situations like that, where I would
be telling a story, I would be writing a story based in fact, based
in quote, but I would also be limiting the scope of that story to the
topic which would make the military look like it was really taking
care of its people, make it look like it was really taking care of
coalition troops and, you know, make it look like it was really
accomplishing something, either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any place in
the world that I served. I had the very unique experience of spending
more than four-and-a-half years overseas.

AMY GOODMAN: Did you raise that story, Matthis, with your editor? Did you say­

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: Absolutely, I did. Yes, I did. I raised it, and
I told him I thought it was terrible and that actually that
experience kind of affected me­well, very much affected me for
awhile. And, you know, it came less than a year before I got out of
the military. And that was­that one was what put the nail in the
coffin for me. I didn't­I was disgusted that I was being ordered to,
like I said, produce a story about this guy, to go in and have to
interview a man who has had his leg blown off in somebody else's war
not but a week earlier and to not be able to report about the fact
that when I interviewed him, I was in full protective gear, because
this young man had contracted a bacteria from the sands of
Afghanistan that is spreading pretty rampantly, or at least at the
time was, through Army hospitals all over the world, and he was
inside an isolation chamber where, you know, all the oxygen was
flowing in, rather than out, to try and keep his bacteria contained. And­

AMY GOODMAN: What was the bacteria?

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: I believe it started with an "A." I'm not a
doctor, but it was something like "acetobacteria" or something like that.

AMY GOODMAN: And you didn't describe what he looked like, where he was?

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: Absolutely not. Well, I took a couple of photos
of him. You know, those are still out around online. But I didn't­

AMY GOODMAN: And did the military newspaper run the photos?

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: It was posted on a website. It was released on
a military newswire. As well, it was published in US Army Europe's
quarterly magazine, which I helped to, you know, shoot for, write,
edit and produce, EurArmy magazine.

AMY GOODMAN: You just couldn't explain why he was in­

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: No, I didn't­I didn't report­I didn't report on
the bacteria.

AMY GOODMAN: You just couldn't explain why he was in that isolation chamber.

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: Well, I knew why he was in that isolation
chamber, but the fact is, for us to be broadcasting to the world, you
know, however necessary it may be that we have a Romanian soldier
here that's in isolation, not but a week after, you know, having his
leg blown off, because he's got a bacteria that's spreading
throughout all kinds of Army hospitals, you know, that does not paint
the rosy picture that the military requires most of its journalists to paint.

AMY GOODMAN: And what did your editors say when you asked if you
could cover the US soldiers, like the one who had his arms and legs blown off?

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: Well, I didn't ask "Could I?" I asked why we
didn't, why we wouldn't. And she said it's not in line with our
strategic goals. We had a strategy map for US Army Europe, a command
information strategy map, which outlined about seven or eight
different points that we wanted to be advertising to the world and to
our soldiers. And I believe while one of them was talk about US Army
Europe healthcare and why it's so good and so top-notch, but one of
the main strategic goals of working for that magazine was to foster
positive relationships between the US military and militaries of
emerging allies in the East, such as Romania or Poland, you know, all
of these former bloc states and just Eastern states that are now
contributing troops to efforts both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

AMY GOODMAN: Sergeant Matthis Chiroux, we only have fifty seconds
left on the satellite, and I want to ask you what happens to you now.
On Sunday, you announced you're not going to report for duty. Are you
AWOL? Are you absent without leave?

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: Well, I'm not absent without leave until they
tell me I'm absent without leave. To me, I'm following the US
Constitution. I'm upholding the law, and I'm going to continue
behaving as such. I refuse to be labeled or be shamed by these
actions. I refuse to behave like a criminal. I am going to stay here
in Washington, D.C., until at least Thursday. I've been here for the
past two-and-a-half weeks lobbying members of Congress to come out in
official support of resisters to the Iraq occupation for cause of its
unconstitutional nature, as well as being waged in violation of
international laws and the like. I believe we've made progress, and I
believe­Thursday, I believe members of Congress will be coming out in
support of war resisters.

AMY GOODMAN: Sergeant Matthis Chiroux, we're going to leave it there,
and I want to thank you very much for being with us. Again, as of
Sunday, he has publicly announced that he is refusing orders to deploy to Iraq.

.

Veterans Used To Test Suicide-Linked Drugs

[2 articles]

'Disposable Heroes': Veterans Used To Test Suicide-Linked Drugs

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5180437&page=1

An ABC News and Washington Times Investigation Reveals Vets Are Being
Recruited for Government Tests on Drugs with Violent Side Effects

By BRIAN ROSS and VIC WALTER
June 17, 2008

Mentally distressed veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are being
recruited for government tests on pharmaceutical drugs linked to
suicide and other violent side effects, an investigation by ABC News
and The Washington Times has found.

The report will air on Good Morning America and will also appear in
The Washington Times on Tuesday. (click here to read the Washington
Times coverage of "Disposable Heroes")

In one of the human experiments, involving the anti-smoking drug
Chantix, Veterans Administration doctors waited more than three
months before warning veterans about the possible serious side
effects, including suicide and neuropsychiatric behavior.

"Lab rat, guinea pig, disposable hero," said former US Army sniper
James Elliott in describing how he felt he was betrayed by the
Veterans Administration.

Elliott, 38, of suburban Washington, D.C., was recruited, at $30 a
month, for the Chantix anti-smoking study three years after being
diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He served a 15-month
tour of duty in Iraq from 2003-2004.

Months after he began taking the drug, Elliott suffered a mental
breakdown, experiencing a relapse of Iraq combat nightmares he blames
on Chantix.

"They never told me that I was going to be suicidal, that I would
cease sleeping. They never told me anything except this will help me
quit smoking," Elliott told ABC News and The Washington Times.

On the night of February 5th, after consuming a few beers, Elliott
says he "snapped" and left his home with a loaded gun.

His fiancee, Tammy, called police and warned, "He's extremely
unstable. He has PTSD."

"Do you think that he is going to shoot or attack the police?" the
911 dispatcher asked.

"I can't be certain. I don't know," she said. (click here to hear
part of Tammy's 911 call)

"He was operating as if he was back in theater, in combat theater,"
she told ABC News. "And of course, a soldier goes nowhere without a gun."

When police arrived, they found Elliott in the street, with the gun
in the front pocket of his hooded sweatshirt.

"Are you going to shoot me? Shoot me," Elliott said, according to the
police report. (click here to see the police report)

Police used a Taser gun to stun Elliott and placed him under arrest.

It wasn't until three weeks later that the Veterans Administration
advised the veterans in the Chantix study that the drug may cause
serious side effects, including "anxiety, nervousness, tension,
depression, thoughts of suicide, and attempted and completed suicide."

The VA's letter to the veterans, on February 29, 2008, followed three
warnings from the FDA and Chantix' maker Pfizer, that were issued on
November 20, 2007, January 18, 2008 and February 1, 2008. (click here
to read the FDA warning and click here to read Pfizer's statement on Chantix)

"How this study continued in the face of these difficulties is almost
impossible to understand," said Arthur Caplan, director of the Center
for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

Doctors at the Veterans Administration say they acted as quickly as
they could.

"This didn't justify an emergency warning at that level," said Dr.
Miles McFall, co-administrator of the VA study.

Dr. McFall said there is no proof that Elliott's breakdown was caused
by Chantix and he sees no reason to discontinue the study. Some 140
veterans diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder continue to
receive Chantix as part of a smoking cessation study.

Dr. McFall says the VA decided to continue the Chantix study because
"it would be depriving our veterans of an effective method of
treatment to help them stop smoking."

Caplan, one of the country's leading medical ethicists, said he was
stunned by the VA's decision to continue the Chantix experiment.

"Why take the group most a risk and keep them going? That doesn't
make any sense, once you know the risk is there," he said.

Chantix is one of the drugs being used in an estimated 25 clinical
studies using veterans by the VA.

Pfizer maintains that "the benefits of Chantix outweigh the risks"
and that it continues to do further studies on the drug.

The FAA has prohibited commercial airline pilots from using Chantix
because of its possible side effects.

--------

Test nearly lethal, veteran says

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/17/test-nearly-lethal-veteran-says/

Anti-smoking medication linked to psychotic, suicidal episodes

Audrey Hudson
Tuesday, June 17, 2008

James Elliott thought his recurring nightmares of exploding bombs,
dogs eating corpses, a child's head blown off its body and other war
horrors from his Iraq tour had ended in 2004 when he returned to his
home in Silver Spring.

The Army veteran sniper was earning high grades in college and got
engaged to be married. His post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) had
disappeared.

He even signed up for a Veterans Affairs experiment to kick his habit
of nearly three packs of cigarettes a day using the drug Chantix, and
was succeeding.

But after two weeks on the drug, his night terrors returned with a
vengeance, and his fiancee built a wall of stuffed animals across
their bed to serve as a security buffer.

"I just thought she really liked stuffed animals," said Mr. Elliott, 38.

Within a few weeks of his taking Chantix, VA officials learned the
drug was causing serious side effects across the nation, including
psychotic behavior, suicides and suicidal tendencies. But the agency
took three months to get that warning through its system and to the
veterans in the study.

Night after night, Mr. Elliott violently thrashed against the plush
toys in his sleep, shouting for air strikes, replaying the horror of
watching friends bleed to death.

"This went on for 2 1/2 months. It just got worse night by night,"
Mr. Elliott said.

He stopped eating and drank massive amounts of coffee or Mountain Dew
to stay awake. Then the nightmares turned to hallucinations. He saw
strangers in the neighborhood wearing suicide vests and was certain
that nearby cars were tagged with improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

"They couldn't come and get me if I was awake and waiting for them,"
Mr. Elliott said.

His fiancee called the police on Feb. 5, concerned he might hurt
himself. She called police a second time when she discovered his
pistol was missing from its holster. As a skilled marksman, he was an
even bigger threat to the police, she thought.

"I don't want him to hurt anybody," she told the 911 dispatcher, but
added "he has talked in the past about killing himself."

After spending several days in jail and weeks in a veterans hospital,
Mr. Elliott now says it was a miracle the police did not kill him.
Instead, officers used a Taser to subdue him. In his pocket, they
found a loaded .40-caliber pistol with one live round in the chamber.

In an interview with The Washington Times weeks after he was
arrested, Mr. Elliott pondered his actions that lead to his being
Tasered - "why did I put the gun in my pants, suicide by cops?" he asked.

JAMES ELLIOT PHOTOGRAPHS Iraq war veteran James Elliott of Silver
Spring is seen here in Baghdad. Mr. Elliot was taking the
prescription drug Chantix to help him stop smoking. The drug has been
linked to psychotic and suicidal behavior.

According to the police report, Mr. Elliott shouted, "Are you going
to shoot me? Shoot me!" after the officers ordered him to show his
hands. As Mr. Elliott was being transported to a nearby police
station, he asked the cops why they did not shoot him.

"I would have shot me," he said.

Mr. Elliott stopped taking the drug and received several weeks of
treatment, blaming the drug for his outburst. He pleaded guilty to
criminal charges resulting from the confrontation with police and was
given probation this month.

Though hallucinations and suicidal tendencies have been declared
potential side effects of Chantix, VA officials involved in the study
are unwilling to blame the drug for Mr. Elliott's breakdown.

Dr. Miles McFall, director of the VA's programs for PTSD sufferers,
told The Times and ABC News during a joint investigation that "we
don't know that Chantix was the cause of this, first of all. And it's
presumed that that's the case. We don't know that to be a fact."

"Suicidality and aggressive impulses [are] part and parcel of their
disorder," Dr. McFall said of PTSD patients.

Mr. Elliott's fiancee called the police on Feb. 5, concerned he might
hurt himself. As a skilled marksman, he was an even bigger threat to
the police, she thought.

After Mr. Elliott's breakdown, he and his fiancee reached out for
help to retired Marine Lt. Col. Roger Charles, editor of
DefenseWatch, the Internet newsmagazine of Soldiers For The Truth
(SFTT), www.sftt.org, a nonprofit educational foundation founded by
the late Col. David H. Hackworth and his wife, Eilhys England, to act
as an advocate for front-line troops.

"This idea that you would take people that already are diagnosed with
mental issues and then give them a drug that appears early on to have
some likelihood of exacerbating such issues. I understand why they
want vets to quit smoking - for financial, health and moral issues -
but I don't understand why they would give it to men and women
struggling for mental normality," Col. Charles said.

"For veterans who serve their country, and in doing so, picked up
mental issues, I would think you would go the extra mile to keep them
from jeopardizing their ability to function normally," Col. Charles said.

Mr. Elliott says "the carrot they dangled in front of my face" to
join the study was $30 a month for the three-year program, which he
initially began with the use of nicotine patches and chewing gum.

"I knew it was a research project, but I also needed the money," Mr.
Elliott said.

Veterans are now warned that Chantix "may make current psychiatric
symptoms that you are experiencing worse, or may make old psychiatric
symptoms return."

But that warning came three weeks after Mr. Elliott suffered his
breakdown and tangled with police.

.

Vets returning from Iraq turn to war protesters for help

Vets returning from Iraq turn to war protesters for help

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD01EAST061608.htm

By AUDREY PARENTE
Staff writer
June 16, 2008

DAYTONA BEACH -- Three months after his advanced infantry training in
the Army Reserves, Mike Gianfriddo was deployed to Iraq.

His military occupational specialty: administrative assistant. His
job in Iraq: tower guard.

He served in Iraq from September 2005 for a year, then returned to
his Minnesota home. He won't talk about what he saw, except to say
that once home, he felt out of place and found ordinary life hard to
handle emotionally.

Recently he found help in an unexpected place: the corner of
International Speedway Boulevard and Nova Road during a peace
demonstration where he met members of Central Florida Veterans for
Peace and Military Families Speak Out. Those groups join CodePink of
Central Florida, a women's peace movement that organizes daily
demonstrations in Volusia and Flagler counties.

While these Iraq war protesters may be very visible to passing
motorists, their whole mission may not be apparent. Seeking peace and
an end to the war, they also help returning servicemen and women readjust.

Not all who pass by honk in support of the demonstrators or agree
with their protest, including Carmine Fragione of New Smyrna Beach, a
former Connecticut probation officer. His opinion opposes the
protesters' philosophies.

"I see them on the street corners with signs. I trust that the
anti-war group is from a wide background, but I think they are
misguided," he said. "But I think in the time of war, we support our
president and fight to win."

But Gianfriddo saw the protesters in a different light, and that led
him to folks who understand his troubling issues.

"I don't like to talk about the war," Gianfriddo said in an interview
at a Daytona Beach restaurant. He declined to be photographed. "When
I came home, I didn't initially know what to do. I had basically been
in the VA (Veterans Administration) in Minnesota since the problems started."

He tried to go to school but didn't do well in that setting. He was
hospitalized for a time.

"I ended up coming to Florida, still having service-related health
issues," said the 25-year-old. He now is in the reserves based in
Daytona Beach. He lives in Port Orange, works at a laundry and
struggles to fit in.

"I came down here and started treatment at the VA and have tried to
put my life back together," he said.

Among the organizations demonstrating on the busy street corner, some
are branches of national groups made up of former military people,
relatives of active military personnel and civil activists who oppose
the war in Iraq.

They do more than protest, Gianfriddo said. They offered him help.

"It was really inspiring when I drove down the road to see people who
cared about us so much that they were out there sticking up for us," he said.

His first encounter with the demonstrators happened on Memorial Day.
He got out of the car and talked to former Army Spc. Phil Restino,
local contact for Central Florida Veterans for Peace, which covers
Jacksonville to Melbourne. Restino introduced him to David Katz of
Cocoa, a Vietnam War Marine veteran who lent an ear and helped him
maneuver through some military red tape.

Katz said Gianfriddo and other returning military service people face
different problems than when he returned from Vietnam.

"We know now that the policy of going to war has nothing to do with
the troops, but they didn't know that in the '60s when they protested
against all of the establishment including the Navy, Marines, Army,"
Katz said. "In the '60s the soldiers were persecuted individually.

"What these men and women need, more than anything else, is somebody
just to talk to (so) they don't fear any repercussions," he said.
"They are still active reservists or inactive still hooked up with
the contract. They face constant rotation to the war theater."

Since that first encounter, Gianfriddo continues to meet Restino,
Katz and many other area members of Veterans for Peace and Military
Families Speak Out one-on-one or at a coffee shop owned by Charlie
Williams, a veteran Coast Guardsman.

"I can't speak out against policy when I am in uniform," Gianfriddo
said, but admitted he's not afraid to talk to the veterans he's met
through the peace group. "I think it's really important for soldiers
to engage in dialogue together with divergent viewpoints, so they are
not looking at each other like the enemy and turn on each other.

"If you are going to be asked to go and kill people for freedom, then
you should be able to ask questions and understand why you are doing
it other than you just signed a contract."

One member of Veterans For Peace, Roberto Barragan of Ormond Beach,
said he knows of the mental anguish returning soldiers suffer after
his experience during the first Gulf War.

"I help with the demonstrations on Thursday and am pretty active in
the black community. I help the kids who have come home with
resources. They talk to me and I try to help them with housing and
getting through red tape," Barragan said. "They have to have somebody
to bounce stuff off of, to keep them from doing things that are
socially inappropriate."

Like Barragan, Army Sgt. Maj. (Ret.) Charlie Carlson of New Smyrna
Beach, a member of Military Families Speak Out, is active in
demonstrations but also helps returning veterans. These include his
son, who served 14 years, including deployments to Kosovo, Bosnia,
Panama, the first Gulf War and the initial march into Baghdad, before
he left the military voluntarily after getting into trouble for
airing his opinions on blog sites.

"I went to Washington in the peace marches, stood on the street
corners, wrote commentary and contributed to what I could," Carlson
said of his activities. "Nobody is listening."
--

audrey.parente@news-jrnl.com
--

CodePink

Grassroots organization of women for peace.

· Organizes vigils, marches, rallies, nonviolent civil disobedience
and various peace rallies.

· Men are allowed in the organization.

· Local contact information: CodePinkVolusia@aol.com, 386-316-9842.

· Demonstrations: Tuesday, 4:30 p.m., U.S. 1 and Dunlawton Ave., Port
Orange; Wednesday, 4:30 p.m., New York Ave. and Woodland Blvd.,
DeLand; Thursday, 5 p.m. State Road 44 and Mission Drive, New Smyrna
Beach; Friday 4:30 p.m., Palm Coast Parkway and Old Kings Road, Palm
Coast; Friday. 6 p.m., Highbanks Road and U.S. Hwy 17-92, DeBary;
Saturday, 10 a.m., Williamson and Granada boulevards, Ormond Beach.
--

Central Florida Veterans for Peace

Veterans of all eras working to raise public awareness

· Founded in 1985 as a nonprofit education organization, recognized
as a United Nations Non-governmental organization in 1990.

· Members must provide copy of their military discharge.

· Group activities include handing out literature and videos related
to costs and consequences of militarism and war, seeking peace
through educational forums, demonstrations and memorial displays.

· Activities also include efforts to effect legislation related to VA
health care and veterans' rights.

· Members offer one-on-one help, counseling and information to active
duty military.

· Contact information: CentralFlaVFP@aol.com; 386-788-2918 .
--

Military Families Speak Out

People opposed to the war in Iraq who have relatives or loved ones in
the military.

· Founded in 2002 by two military families, now 34 chapters, more
than 3,000 members strong.

· Members link up, share support, link to local activism and build
opposition to the war.

· Contact information: mfsoflorida@yahoo.com, 352-400-4174.

· Gold Star Families Speak Out is a national chapter of MFSO,
specifically for families who have lost loved ones as a result of the Iraq war.
--

Film hosted by Central Florida Veterans for Peace

What: "Hijacking Catastrophe" narrated by Julian Bond.
When: 8:30 p.m. Wednesday.
Where: Coffee Connection, 315 Seabreeze Blvd., Daytona Beach
Cost: Free
Reservations requested: Contact CentralFlaVFP@aol.com; 386-788-2918 .
--

Did You Know?

The 1960s protests against the Vietnam War reached mammoth
proportions with the November 1969 march in Washington, D.C. The
event remains the largest single war protest in U.S. history.

· The crowd -- estimated at 250,000, but possibly as high as 500,000
-- marched down Pennsylvania Avenue and onto the Mall between the
Capitol and Washington Monument.

· Speakers included Sens. Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern and
Charles Goodell; Coretta Scott King; and comedian/activist Dick
Gregory. Entertainers attending the mass protest included singers
Arlo Guthrie, John Denver, Pete Seeger, composer Leonard Bernstein,
musical conductor Mitch Miller and the touring cast of the musical "Hair."
--

SOURCES: Compiled by News Researcher Peggy Ellis from bbc.co.uk,
savethemall.org, washingtonpost.com
--

More information:

· CodePink Women for Peace
http://www.codepink4peace.org/
· Central Florida Veterans for Peace
http://www.cflveteransforpeace.org/cms/
· Military Families Speak Out
http://www.mfso.org/

.

Head-to-head: Refuge for deserters?

Head-to-head: Refuge for deserters?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7444116.stm

Should US deserters from Iraq be given refuge in Canada, a country
that welcomed tens of thousands of Vietnam draft-dodgers and deserters?

It's a burning question in Canada as the authorities prepare to
deport 25-year-old Corey Glass to face trial in the US.

Here, Corey argues he should be allowed to stay, while below Jonathan
Kay from Canada's conservative National Post newspaper says deserters
should be sent home.
--

COREY GLASS, CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR/DESERTER

In 2002, I joined the Indiana National Guard. When I joined, I was
told I would only be in combat if there were troops occupying the
United States.

I signed up to defend people and do humanitarian work filling
sandbags if there was a hurricane. I had no conception I would be
deployed to fight on foreign shores.

But in 2005, I was deployed with my unit to Camp Anaconda near Balad,
Iraq. My job in Iraq was in military intelligence.

Through this job I had access to a lot of information about what was
happening on the ground in Iraq. I realised innocent people were
being killed unjustly and I tried to quit the military while in Iraq.
My commander told me I was stressed out and needed R&R, because I was
doing a job I was not trained to do.

I went home on leave and said I was not coming back. I was told
desertion is punishable by death. I was Absent Without Leave (AWOL)
in America for eight months.

I searched the internet and found out about US war resisters in
Canada. I arrived in Toronto two weeks later.

I should have been in New Orleans after Katrina, not in Iraq. I
believe the Iraq War is illegal and morally wrong. I believe I have a
duty to refuse to take part in a war not sanctioned by the United
Nations, started on the basis of lies.

I have been in Toronto since August 2006. In my time here, I have
been self-sufficient and I have made many friends. I have built a life here.

Last week I was in Ottawa, when the House of Commons passed a motion
saying that the Canadian government should make it possible for
conscientious objectors to get permanent residence in Canada. The
motion also said that all deportation proceedings against us should
be stopped.

But I may be deported anyway. On 21 May I was told that my last
chance to stay in Canada had failed, and I must leave by 12 June
(since extended to 10 July). I know that if I return to the US I will
face imprisonment and possibly a criminal record.

I don't think it is fair that I should be returned to the United
States to face unjust punishment for doing what I felt morally
obligated to do. I am hoping that Canada, which stayed out of the
Iraq War for reasons similar to my own, will reverse the deportation
order and let me stay, as parliament has urged.

There are several dozen other war resisters like me in Canada now.
They all deserve to stay here and get on with their lives.

I hope the new American President will end the Iraq War and bring the
troops home. But until that happens, I believe it is every soldier's
right to refuse to take part in that war, if that is what his or her
conscience says they must do.
--

JONATHAN KAY, CANADA'S NATIONAL POST

Should Corey Glass have enlisted in the US National Guard back in
2002? Probably not. From what I saw and heard of his 21 May press
conference in Toronto, my first impression was that this pale, lanky
25-year-old should be playing synth in a Gothic emo band - not
kicking down doors in Iraq.

But for whatever reason, Glass did sign up for military service.
There's no draft in the United States - as there was in the Vietnam
era: No one forced him to put on a uniform. Why should Canadians help
this deserter go back on his freely given word?

America's fair-weather soldiers shouldn't be permitted to make a
mockery of a Canadian refugee system that was originally designed to
protect migrants fleeing assassination and torture.

During his 21 May appearance, Glass said he was "morally obligated"
to desert the US military rather than return to fight an "unjust war" in Iraq.

At the same press conference, anti-war activist Jane Orion Smith
argued that Glass is legally entitled to asylum in Canada because the
applicable UN standard covers conscientious objectors involved in
military actions that are "condemned by the international community".

Even if this label could fairly be applied to the 2003 liberation of
Iraq (a premise I would dispute), it definitely did not apply to the
Iraq conflict in 2005, which is when Glass deserted.

By that time, the UN Security Council had already passed Resolutions
1483 (recognising the United States and Britain as "occupying powers"
under international law) and 1546 (endorsing the creation of an Iraqi
Interim Government).

Glass's mission was not to invade Iraq, his mission was to help
protect the emergence of a free, peaceful, sovereign Iraqi state.

With the recent deployment of the Iraqi army to Basra, Mosul and the
Sadr City neighbourhood of Baghdad, that goal is now close to being
realised - no thanks to Glass, nor to the dozens of other
"conscientious objectors" now residing in Canada.

Moreover, from a purely political standpoint, giving asylum to the
likes of Glass would send a terrible message. It would undermine
America's war effort in Iraq - even as Canadian and American soldiers
fight side by side on another front in the war on terror, Afghanistan.

Given this shared enterprise, does Canada really want to cast itself
as the protector of fair-weather American soldiers fleeing their duty?

Six years ago, Corey Glass picked the wrong career. Three years ago,
he picked an illegal way to abandon it. It's time for this ex-soldier
to go home and pay the price for what he's done.
--

Jonathan Kay is managing editor for comment at Canada's National Post
newspaper.

.

Reefer resister

Reefer resister

http://metrospirit.com/index.php?cat=1990310070813675&ShowArticle_ID=11021006083359693

VIDEO AND STORY: PFC Ryan Jackson, now in the brig, has been called a
hero by peace groups after smoking marijuana and going AWOL for more
than three months

BY CHARLES TREMBLAY
06/11/2008 - 06/17/2008

AUGUSTA, GA - Private First Class Ryan Jackson went AWOL from his
unit at Fort Gordon for more than three months. Now peace groups like
Courage to Resist have been calling him a hero. But when Jackson went
to trial, the military prosecutor called him a spoiled child.

The case of Private Jackson is one of more than 40 being highlighted
by peace activists around the country as courageous resistance to the
war in Iraq. Some have been accused of going AWOL, some of resisting
lawful orders and at least one, Jackson, of smoking marijuana ­
something he says he got from the peace activists.

The result of Jackson's case shows that a modern military court is
unwilling to dish out hard time, even to a soldier who gets caught
using drugs and running from his job.

Jackson joined the Army in May 2005, and served without incident for
more than two years, which included a tour in Korea. He came to Fort
Gordon in May 2007 and was assigned under Captain Kenneth Stallings
of the 35th Signal Brigade.

Jackson says that he began researching and reading about civil
disobedience and non-violent resistance during his time in Korea,
which he calls a transformative experience. Whitman Bradley, a
character witness for the defense in Jackson's court martial,
submitted a brief statement of his experience with Jackson, saying he
found him to be very sincere and committed.

At this point in his military career, Jackson says he could no longer
ignore his conscience, and refused to be a part of any organization
of a violent nature.

The Army has a process whereby soldiers who come to a similar crisis
or clarity of conscience can apply as a "conscientious objector." The
applicant can ask either to be reassigned to a non-combat role for
the duration of his/her service or to be discharged outright.

But Jackson looked at the process and decided it was altogether
"immoral, unethical and wrong."

Michael Thames, who writes for the Metro Spirit and who was honorably
discharged from service after filing as a conscientious objector,
concedes that the process is tedious, harrowing and long. However, he
says that although the number of applicants who are accepted is
relatively low, the Army "gives you every opportunity to make your case."

You can have a lawyer, or call character witnesses, and after the
paperwork is accepted there is a time limit on a decision. When asked
what part of the process could be considered immoral, Thames could
not come up with a single idea.

Jackson says the immoral part lies in the very concept of a panel of
strangers deliberating and deciding if your beliefs are authentic or valid.

By his own account, he decided to try another approach. He began to
accumulate counseling statements for minor infractions like showing
up late for work or not being at an assigned duty location. He
informed his chain of command of his intention to violate minor rules
until he could be administratively discharged.

Jackson's civilian attorney James Branum says, "PFC Jackson decided
to do whatever it took to be released from his obligation to an
organization he could no longer be a part of."

His plan was close to success when Captain Stallings abruptly halted
his out-processing last December, a move the defense team
characterized as part of a personal attack by the unit commander.
Stallings briefly took the stand and his testimony was a short denial
that he had any personal vendetta against PFC Jackson.

Stallings did not mention the drug test that Jackson failed on Nov. 26.

It was in December, after his pending discharge was suspended, that
Jackson began to absent himself from his unit. His charges include
three instances of being AWOL. On December 21, 2007, he left Fort
Gordon for the last time.

Jackson says he stayed in Augusta for a few weeks before traveling to
his hometown near Detroit. During this time, he says he was
researching and soul-searching. "I gathered myself together."

He ultimately turned himself in to authorities at Fort Sill in
Oklahoma on April 4 of this year.

He was allowed to report to Fort Gordon by his own recognizance, but,
upon arrival in Augusta, he was locked up and held in pre-trial
confinement until his court martial.

Courage to Resist cites this as further evidence of Jackson's
persecution for his opinions of the war and his association with
anti-war movements like theirs, and others like Charleston Peace.

According to Courage to Resist, pre-trial confinement for non-violent
offenses is unheard of.

However, the days Jackson served awaiting trial are subtracted from
the overall jail time in the sentencing.

Courage to Resist never mentions on its Web page that one of
Jackson's charges is wrongful use of marijuana. He admits to smoking
a joint sometime between October and November 2007, well before he
learned of the demise of his administrative discharge.

He failed his urinalysis eight days before the first time he went
AWOL. While Courage to Resist doesn't believe the charge merits a
mention, there is no doubt that the Army considers drug offenses to
be very serious.

Jackson admits that smoking marijuana was an error in judgment
regarding his plan to accumulate a list of minor offenses leading to
an administrative discharge from the military.

Nonetheless, as a general concept he does not think smoking marijuana
is a big deal. He says that being around a lot of peace groups put
him into pretty regular contact with it.

The court martial hearing on Friday, May 30, lasted only about four
hours. Jackson, represented by James Branum and his military counsel
Captain Kenny, pleaded guilty to all charges, including going AWOL,
failing to show up for duty and wrongful use of marijuana.

The judge, Captain Eric Allen, went through each charge specifically
and thoroughly, including several of the minor infractions of which
there were multiple charges of the same offense.

The real theater came with the closing statements.

Since Jackson pleaded guilty, the arguments were aimed instead at
influencing the judge's sentence.

Defense attorney Branum argued that the sentence should arise from
three principles: civil disobedience, sincerity of the defendant and
the defendant's rehabilitative potential. He called Jackson a client
and a friend. "I admire and respect what he is about and what he
stands for," he said.

The defense asserted that Jackson's disobedience to the law was
obedience to his conscience and that he was demonstrating a
willingness to submit to the penalties of law. Branum talked about a
retired psychologist, who Jackson studied and prayed with while he
was AWOL and who apparently attested to Jackson's sincerity, although
this person was not mentioned as a character witness during the hearing.

Finally, PFC Jackson "wants to connect with God and understand God.
He wants to make the world better, to make humanity better in some
way," said Branum in an effort to show Jackson's rehabilitative potential.

Prosecuting attorney Erik Hendrickson said, "This is not a case of
politics, but of a 25-year-old man, a soldier in the Army, behaving
like a spoiled child. He threw a temper tantrum to get what he
wanted, and when he didn't get what he wanted, he ran."

He called for the judge to discharge Jackson because he said it was
unfair for any other unit, any soldier to have to serve with him.
"Someone may be harmed."

Hendrickson argued that even if you don't agree with the
organization, purposely disrupting it is not the way to go. He asked
the judge for a strong sentence to teach Jackson that whatever you do
you must be held accountable.

At the end, Jackson gave a direct appeal to the judge in which he
claimed to have found a path of enlightenment. "I have become a man
of honor, principles and morals. For that I am not ashamed."

His monologue was packed full of comparisons of himself to the likes
of Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi. He quoted Thoreau and Thomas
Jefferson and told how he came to understand "how a man can be free
while imprisoned" because his spirit and mind cannot be confined.

He reiterated that he had been persecuted through his ordeal.

Judge Allen heard both sides and deliberated for less than an hour.
Jackson had chosen to have the sentence decided "by judge alone"
instead of by a jury, but the judge alone is not really alone.

A Convening Authority also suggests a sentence. That suggestion is
sealed until after the judge rules. Then the two decisions are
compared and the defendant receives the benefit of the lesser sentence.

The judge's ruling called for four months in jail, of a maximum
possible one year. But the Convening Authority suggested 100 days, so
their lesser ruling stands. Jackson gets credit for almost two months
of time served.

In addition to jail time, Judge Allen and the Convening Authority
agreed on a reduction of rank from E-3 to E-1, and separation from
the Army with a Bad Conduct discharge.

Jackson says he feels like he has been given a three-year break on
his real prison sentence, his six-year commitment to the Army.

As Private Jackson serves his last few weeks in lock-up, he is hoping
to hear back on the Conscientious Objector packet he has submitted in
hopes of mitigating his discharge status.

While in the brig, he used his time to complete that "immoral" CO
packet he once rejected for reasons of principle and conscience.

.

Amnesty Intl: James Glass has right not to serve in Iraq

James Corey Glass has right not to serve in Iraq

http://pacificfreepress.com/content/view/2716/81/

06 June 2008
AMR 51/057/2008

According to his statement, he had concerns about the legality of the
war before his deployment to Iraq. While serving there, he developed
further serious objections to the war, including what he saw as the
abusive treatment of civilians by the US military and failure within
the system to address such abuses. He stated that, whilst in Iraq, he
reported his concerns to his superiors and asked to be relieved of
duty. His request was denied but he was granted a two-week leave. He
refused to return to his unit and went absent without leave (AWOL) in
February 2006.

Since being in Canada, James Glass has become a member of the "War
Resisters Campaign" and has spoken out publicly about his objection
to the Iraq war.

US law recognizes the right to conscientious objection only on
grounds of opposition to war in any form. James Glass was therefore
unable to seek a claim for discharge from the army on grounds of his
objection to the Iraq War. Other similar cases where US soldiers have
sought to register their conscientious objection and apply for
non-combatant status have been turned down.

If returned to the USA he faces a possible court-martial, where he
could be imprisoned for between one and five years.

Background Information

Some US military personnel who have refused to deploy to Iraq or
Afghanistan due to their conscientious objection to US policy and
practice in the "war on terror" have been imprisoned solely for their
beliefs. Amnesty International has considered some to be prisoners of
conscience who should be released immediately and unconditionally.

Some of these conscientious objectors have been court-martialled and
sentenced despite pending applications for conscientious objector
status, others were imprisoned after their applications were turned
down on the basis that they were objecting to particular wars rather
than to war in general.

Amnesty International has declared a number of conscientious
objectors in the USA to be prisoners of conscience. They included
Camilo Mejia, who was sentenced to one year's imprisonment for his
objections to the war in Iraq, and Abdullah Webster, who refused to
participate in the same war due to his religious beliefs. Another,
Kevin Benderman, was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment after he
refused to re-deploy to Iraq because of the scenes of devastation he
witnessed there. Agustín Aguayo was sentenced to eight months'
imprisonment for his refusal to participate in the war in Iraq. All
four have since been released.

Amnesty International is of the view that the right to refuse to
perform military service for reasons of conscience is inherent in the
notion of freedom of thought, conscience and religion as recognised
in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and
Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR).

Amnesty International considers a conscientious objector to be any
person who, for reasons of conscience or profound conviction, refuses
either to perform any form of service in the armed forces or applies
for non-combatant status. This can include refusal to participate in
a war because one disagrees with its aims or the manner in which it
was being waged, even if one does not oppose taking part in all wars.

Wherever such a person is detained or imprisoned solely for these
believe, Amnesty International considers that person to be a prisoner
of conscience. AI also considers conscientious objectors to be
prisoners of conscience if they are imprisoned as a consequence of
leaving the armed forces without authorization for reasons of
conscience, if because of those reasons; they have taken reasonable
steps to secure release from military obligations.
--

War Resisters Support Campaign
Vancouver

http://ca.geocities.com/vanresisters/

Tel: 778-837-1475

c/o 1143 E Pender St
Vancouver BC V6A 1W6

.