Resisting war

Resisting war

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4641.shtml

By Howard Lisnoff
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Apr 29, 2009

On April 21, Mathis Chiroux argued his case in front of an
administrative separation board of the Army Human Resources Command
after refusing deployment to Iraq in 2008.

Chiroux had previously served honorably as a photojournalist in
Afghanistan, Japan, Europe and the Philippines before being called up
again to serve in Iraq. Chiroux testified that the military was
"sending people off to participate in war crimes." He faced an
"other-than-honorable discharge" if found guilty by the Army board,
which would have meant a loss of benefits for his time served. The
separation board granted him a general discharge, under honorable
conditions and benefits.

Following Chiroux's victory, he issued the following statement: "So
what does this mean for the military? RESIST! Now's the time, ladies
and gentleman [sic]. The floodgates are open. Your leaders are
listening and, more and more, they are agreeing. Resisters are moving
away from being the exception, and slowly becoming the norm."

While I think Mathis Chiroux's heroism and bravery in the face of the
arbitrary nature of military authority was admirable, there are many,
many considerations a soldier must make before becoming a resister.
The road to resistance to the military is filled with veritable
landmines. The penalties and life-changing results can be devastating!

Most soldiers who resist deployment to a war zone will face the very
real possibility of being sentenced to a prison term in a military
stockade, loss of rank and benefits, and a dishonorable discharge.
Military stockades are not conducive to honoring the sacrifices of
war resisters! Failing to report for duty can result in being found
guilty of being absent without leave or desertion. A dishonorable
discharge can follow a person for life with the very real probability
of being barred from many jobs that require any kind of security
clearance. Government jobs are unobtainable with so-called "bad paper."

Fleeing to Canada for sanctuary has almost been eliminated by the
active opposition of the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
War resisters, though supported by the majority of Canadians, face
the prospect of being deported and handed over to military
authorities. Often the penalty for returned resisters is more severe
than for those who stood up to the government while still in the military.

Though it is difficult to compare war resistance during the Vietnam
War with opposition to either the war in Afghanistan or the Iraq
wars, there are many lessons that war resisters learned during their
opposition to the war in Vietnam that can be passed on to
contemporary resisters. Resistance to war is always unpopular, but
resistance to wars fought with conscripts are easier to defend on
moral grounds, though the differences between a war fought with
draftees rather than volunteers is like splitting moral hairs in
light of the lethality of technology used in "modern" warfare. Once
troops are deployed the call of "support our troops" can, at least in
the short term, drown out any considerations to treat resisters
fairly. Nationalism and national chauvinism serve to cement the will
of a nation to fight. Following years of war, the spotlight of the
media is lost on the cause of resistance and greater injustices can
take place in the treatment of resisters.

During the Vietnam War, resisters were better off if they resisted
the draft rather than the military. Only a few thousand men who
resisted the military were discharged under honorable conditions
through President Carter's amnesty program, and tens of thousands had
to live with bad paper that limited many of their choices in life.
While thousands were granted sanctuary, primarily in Canada, the
lives of immigrants were hard, especially if resisters didn't have
the skills needed by the host country. However, thousands who became
resisters went on to live successful lives in Canada. Amnesty was far
easier to obtain as a draft resister than a military resister. Many
families were literally torn apart by the decision to resist war.

While resistance to a moral wrong is always admirable, it is wise to
consider all the possible outcomes before embarking on that course of
action. The military's job is to fight and win wars, not to provide
accolades to resisters.
--

Howard Lisnoff is a freelance writer. He was a Vietnam War resister.
He can be reached at howielisnoff@gmail.com.

.

War Resistor Successfully Challenges 'Misconduct' Charge

War Resistor Successfully Challenges 'Misconduct' Charge

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271331

Apr 21, 2009
by Stephen Dohnberg

War Resistor Sgt Chiroux successfully challenged his misconduct
hearing, facing down the U.S. Army and offering a potential "green
light" for other soldiers challenging the legality of U.S. action in
Iraq and Afghanistan.

War resistor Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, who refused to deploy to Iraq
under the Individual Ready Reserve, today successfully challenged his
misconduct hearing and was granted a 'General Discharge Under
Honorable Conditions'.

Chiroux's hearing in St. Louis, MO, could have seen the veteran, who
previously received an 'Honorable Discharge' after 5 years of active
service in Afghanistan, Philippines, Germany, and Japan, potentially
lose his GI benefits.

He refused to redeploy during a statement on Father's Day, 2008, and
it wasn't until three days after Chiroux's participation in the
Protest at the final Ovt. 15 Presidential Debate at Hofstra
University, Long Island, NY that Chiroux received the threat of a
'Misconduct' charge.

Chrioux, who requested the hearing and planned to challenge the U.S.
Army's decision said he was doing on on the basis that the war was
"an illegal and immoral occupation".

Chiroux declared in a recent press release "My resistance as a non
commissioned officer to this abhorrent occupation is just as
legitimate now as it was last year"

"Soldiers have a duty to adhere to the international laws of war
described as supreme in Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the U.S.
Constitution, which we swear to abide by before the orders of any
superior, including our former or current president."

In a brief text message from Chiroux moments after the completed
hearing from St, Louis, he exclaimed "Victory!" and said "Resistance
has a green light!", meaning that this could be a potential landmark
and precedent setting case for war resistors who believe the U.S.
action in Iraq and Afghanistan in illegal and contravenes military
conventions and the Constitution.

It could also mean new avenues of challenge for AWOL War Resistors
currently residing in Canada.

.

Refusing to Redeploy: My Story

Refusing to Redeploy: My Story

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthis-chiroux/refusing-to-redeploy-my-s_b_191156.html

Matthis Chiroux
Posted April 24, 2009

On Monday, I scored a small but significant victory for the peace
movement, for troops and civilians all over the world, and for
myself: I faced the military for my refusal to deploy to Iraq and
walked away a free man with a general discharge from the Army's
Individual Ready Reserve.

This does not affect my discharge from Active Duty Service, however,
which is the term of enlistment from which my G.I. Bill derives. My
benefits remain mine, and I will use them to continue my education,
something I believe all people should have an inherent right to --
without fighting in anyone's army.

At the hearing on Monday in St Louis, Missouri, I was accompanied by
my three JAG attorneys, my civilian representation, James Branham;
and by Prof. Marjorie Cohn, the President of the National Lawyers
Guild, and my mother Patricia, both of whom testified on my behalf.
The hearing was also attended by Mike McPherson, Executive Director
of Veterans for Peace, Bill Ramsey, of St. Louis Instead of War, and
Alexandra, my girlfriend.

My eyes were glued to the panel of officers I was facing, the whole
time. I looked those officers in the eyes, and I could see the
humanity in each of them. I don't know if they agreed with me, but
there was humanity; their hearts and minds were open.

The prosecution opened the proceedings by reading a list of when they
sent me the call-up, when I contacted them in Feb. 2008 and asked for
a delay to finish a semester of school I had just paid $4,500 for.
They tracked when they issued me several delay orders until the final
orders for me to report back for active duty on June 15th -- Father's
Day last year. They tracked when they sent me several failure to
appear notices and when they finally initiated the discharge process
against me.

After this, they showed the YouTube video of my refusal to deploy
after a hearing of former, and some still active duty, soldiers and
marines on Capitol Hill last year. They followed that with excerpts
of the speech I gave on the front porch of a rowhouse in northwest
DC, where Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) activists lived at the
time, on Father's Day last year, the day I was supposed to report.
Then followed a Democracy Now interview I did the day after.

They questioned a young Captain about the paperwork process, and then
they called me to testify.

I thought I'd be more nervous than I was, but I very much felt
relieved. You know, there's all kinds of nifty ways to communicate
now-a-days, and maybe call me old-fashioned, but there's nothing like
looking someone in the eyes and telling them what's in your soul. And
I bared it for those officers with humanity in their eyes.

I told them I believe that the war in Iraq is illegal, and that as a
soldier, I thought it was my responsibility to resist it. I told them
I was originally planning on deploying, despite my belief that the
war is illegal, but that after I was exposed to Winter Soldier, Iraq
and Afghanistan, in March last year, I found clarity. And I found courage.

We submitted the Winter Soldier book, as well the IVAW-produced
Warrior Writers book for the record as exhibits -- to be referenced
by future panels of officers taking part in hearings like mine.

The officers asked me why I thought the war was unconstitutional, and
I pulled the copy of the Constitution that I carry with me from my
back pocket. I read from Article 6, Paragraph 2, the Supremacy
Clause. The prosecution objected, insisting the document was irrelevant.

After much deliberation, the lead council of the board, a civilian
lawyer, shut down debate and said the board wouldn't hear the
constitution, and that questioning should continue.

So I said fine, I can just quote it, and I quoted, "this
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of
the Land."

I said when we violated the U.N. Charter to invade and occupy Iraq
and Afghanistan, we had violated U.S. law and the Constitution, and
that it is every Soldiers' responsibility to resists the crimes of
our government for which we are ultimately responsible.

I focused upon the eyes of each board member as I spoke. I told them
I was there because they needed to know that we are not cowards, and
we are not traitors, but people who are dedicated to doing what's right.

Startlingly, they stared back at me with no disgust in their eyes.
They heard me, and they considered what I said. They didn't smile,
but then again, they did not threaten me. They listened. And as I
spoke and the words rolled off my tongue, I felt a heavy weight
lifted from me. I suddenly felt the solidarity of millions there in
the room with me.

I thought of Franz Jägerstätter, an Austrian citizen who refused to
fight in Hitler's army. He was decapitated after the authorities had
exhausted every avenue of opportunity to get him to accept some form
of duty, even if without a weapon.

I thought of those brave GIs in Vietnam who stood against the system,
who worked to prevent the victimization of their brothers and sisters
by resisting the genocide. Many went to jail. One was shot and killed
while trying to escape.

I thought of my brothers and sisters in IVAW, those who realize the
humanity in us all deserves to be respected beyond what the military
has trained us to think.

In her testimony, Professor Cohn gave the most thorough, detailed,
understandable and spot-on breakdown of the illegalities of the wars
in both Iraq and Afghanistan I've ever heard. She focused on the U.N.
Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Nürnberg Tribunals, U.S. Federal
and Constitutional law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

When my mother testified, she recounted the last thing I said to her
in July 2002 before I got out of the car to catch a ride to basic
training: "I have to go be a grown-up now." I had no idea what I was
getting into.

My lead attorney told a story of his father, a retired sergeant
major. He said he was shocked to learn one day that his father
supported Mohammad Ali's decision to refuse deployment to Vietnam,
despite the fact that he had done two tours himself.

His father told him that he disagreed with Ali's decision but had
respect for any man who would stand up for what he believed in and be
held accountable by his own will. His father told him this is what it
means to be honorable. "Sgt. Chiroux is an honorable man," said my
attorney. "He could have stayed home. He's here. He's a man of honor.
He deserves an honorable discharge."

After deliberation, I was found guilty of misconduct for refusing to
deploy to Iraq. The panel recommended I be given a general discharge
from the reserves under honorable conditions.

I left the building with the biggest smile I've had for years. I feel
truly vindicated. My ass is mine, and so is my soul. Maybe the
decision can be overturned in time, but at least on Monday, they got
the principle right.

Later that same afternoon, I testified at Winter Soldier in St Louis
and spoke of long moments in my life which have remained mere shadows
for years. I'll tell you about them tomorrow.

.

Canadian Parliament votes again to let U.S. war resisters stay

I'll Have A "Draught Dodger!"

Canadian Parliament votes again to let U.S. war resisters stay

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22347.htm

http://www.countercurrents.org/ferner020409.htm

By Mike Ferner
April 04, 2009

For the second time in 10 months, Canada's House of Commons told
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government,
including Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney, to stop deporting U.S.
soldiers resisting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vote united the three opposition parties, the Liberals, the Bloc
Quebecois and the New Democratic Party in a close 129-125 vote.

Last week, the War Resisters Support Campaign rallied for former Army
soldier, Kimberly Rivera, the first female U.S. soldier to go to
Canada. Nearly 100 people filled the chairs and lined the aisles at
the Steelworkers hall in Toronto for Rivera, her husband and three
children, the youngest born in Canada six months ago.

The morning after the March 25 rally, Rivera was due to be deported
back to the U.S. to face an Army court martial, but Federal Judge
James Russell agreed with Rivera's argument that resisters who speak
out against the war publicly in Canada receive harsher sentences, and
granted her a temporary stay.

"This was the fifth time that the court ruled that Iraq war resisters
face harsher punishment if they're sent back to the U.S.," said
Michelle Robidoux, spokesperson for the Toronto-based support
campaign. "The courts have spoken, Parliament has spoken and
Canadians have made their views clear. These conscientious objectors
should not be sent back to the United States to face jail time for
opposing the Iraq War."

Several other resisters were at the Steelworkers hall to support
Rivera and her family, including Jeremy Hinzman, the first U.S.
serviceperson to go to Canada during this war, Phil McDowell and his
wife Jamine, Chuck Wylie, Dale Landry, Ryan Johnson and three others
who did not want their names mentioned.

At that rally, MP Olivia Chow, NDP Immigration Critic, announced that
the following day she would introduce a resolution in the House of
Commons restating Parliament's position from last June. That measure
as well as the most recent one, are non-binding resolutions the
Harper government does not have to legally obey. However, to give an
idea how much public support is behind letting war resisters stay in
Canada, campaign organizers feared Chow's surprise announcement might
lose the votes of some Liberal MPs who did not appreciate the NDP
grabbing the limelight on the issue.

In a poll conducted last year gained by Angus Reid Strategies, 64% of
all Canadians said resisters should be allowed to stay. The poll
results were reported in the same issue of the Truro Daily News that
carried a story on Dick Cotterill, who enlisted in the Marine Corps,
decided he was opposed to the Viet Nam war and went to Nova Scotia in 1972.

Cotterill now owns his own business and has a son in the Canadian Air
Force. When asked how he felt about the current generation of young
war resisters, he said, "Every soldier has the responsibility to
refuse to obey orders that are illegal, unjust and immoral."

That sentiment was echoed several times at the rally for Rivera last
week. Two local clergy members spoke in support, saying resisters
have a right to refuse to serve in an illegal war. One even said he
welcomed these young men and women and called them, "the kind of
people Canada needs."

The morning after the rally, when Rivera would have been deported,
save for Judge Russell's reprieve, Robidoux let a late-morning
breakfast go cold as she furiously called fellow campaigners and
texted Members of Parliament on the floor of the House debating
Chow's motion. Not long after the resolution's introduction,
Conservatives moved to end discussion which would effectively kill
the measure.

Reading one incoming text message, she exclaimed, "Ha! This is the
new Tory line: 'We don't need this legislation, Obama will save them
(resisters).'"

Commenting on the non-binding nature of the resolution, Robidoux
said, "I think we're going to win or lose the fight in the next six
months. Unless there is a change in the government we'll not win the
political solution. We need a change in the regulations. The
Conservative government can be pushed on a case-by-case basis, (to
let resisters stay) but that's a real long shot."

Asked why this issue is so important to Canadians that they would
make a significant effort to organize support, Robidoux replied, "The
history we had during the Vietnam War is the foundation of today's
War Resisters Support Campaign. People my age had contact with draft
resisters. I remember when I was eight years old and there were a few
of them living in the house next door. I thought they were cool."

She described how sheltering resisters during that war became part of
the Canadian culture.

"The announcer of the most popular radio program on CBC came here
during that war. There's a well-known beer in British Columbia called
'Draught Dodger.' The president of the Steelworkers local here was a
resister. Artists, activists, the co-founder of Greenpeace…nobody
wants to lose that history and those contributions. It's more than
just being against war. It's the right to conscience. What's happened
now is that the Tories are sick of that history; they don't want to
hear any more about it."

A second reason, Robidoux said, is the Iraq War itself.

"It's simple. It's wrong. You don't need a political science degree
to understand that. Opposition to it has increased every year."
Illustrating her point, she noted that on February 15, 2003, as part
of protests around the globe to oppose the invasion of Iraq,
Canadians turned out in massive numbers. "There were 80,000 people in
the streets of Toronto, 250,000 in Montreal, many thousands in
Quebec…even 7,000 in the little city of Victoria (BC)."

She finally paused and took a deep breath. "Since May of '08 there's
been no down time. I'm not exaggerating…it's just running flat out."
After that momentary pause, Robidoux returned to how the current
sanctuary movement for resisters came about.

"It's important Americans learn of our relationship with the U.S.
peace movement. If it wasn't for MFSO (Military Families Speak Out),
we probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground. We met Nancy
(Lessin) and Charlie (Richardson) (cofounders of MFSO), at an early
demonstration in Washington. I noticed this couple wearing
Steelworkers' jackets and went up to talk with them. We had them come
to Toronto in February '04 to speak and I had seen an article on
Jeremy Hinzman, the first U.S. soldier to come to Canada. Nancy and
Charlie knew he was staying with some Quakers, so we were able to
find him. Then Brandon Hughes came two or three months later via the
Quakers, and we decided in May '04 to launch the War Resisters
Support Campaign."

The wiry 47 year-old refuted the argument that U.S. soldiers are no
longer drafted and therefore don't qualify for sanctuary in Canada.

"There's the whole 'compulsion' argument. You've got 'Stop-Loss'
which the military uses to keep soldiers on active duty, the
'Individual Ready Reserve' that reactivates them any time during an
eight year period even if they've served their four year contract,
also the early National Guard call-ups and that's not even talking
about the economy."

Robidoux said the campaign will now concentrate on getting a "Private
Member's" bill introduced that, if it passes, will have the force of
law to stop deportation of resisters. "Of course these Tories could
still decide to ignore it, which they have with other legislation
that has been passed," she said ruefully.

Recognizing the substantial number of calls to Canadian officials
U.S. peace activists have made to support the resolutions and urge
compliance, Robidoux said the most important thing people south of
the border can do is "build links with resisters who are here, maybe
'adopting' a resister, and helping to build awareness of their
situation among Americans and American media. It will be up to us in
Canada to win it here among our politicians."
--

Ferner (www.mikeferner.org) is the author of "Inside the Red Zone: A
Veteran For Peace Reports from Iraq," and is president of VFP.

.