|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
Announcement :: Government Secrecy |
|
Support The Resistance |
Current rating: 0 |
by Diedra Cobb
Email: underfoe (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified!)
Address: 203D MI BN, 4727 Deer Creek Loop, APG, MD 21005 |
14 Nov 2003
Modified: 08 Dec 2003 |
Support for a local female whose conscientious objector case was recently denied.
For those of you who don't know, yesterday morning (13 NOV 03) I, Diedra Cobb, a 21yr old female from Urbana, IL, found out that my conscientious objector case was denied. I have been struggling through this case since Jan. 03, living in barracks in which I currently reside at Aberdeen Proving Ground in MD. This denial of my case means that I can now be called upon to go to Iraq, and that I will be starting the process of filing a writ of habeus corpus case at the federal court level to appeal this decision. The problem is that in these times of militaristic machismo coupled with a great shortage for the type of lengthy war that we are waging, they need people. If they lose too many people, they will have to reinstate the draft and this is a move that would kill president Bush's election campaign in the upcoming election. So I'm in a situation where I presented a strong case (from what I've been told the orgs that have aided me), however, since the final decision is left up to a military committee called The Conscientious Objector Review Board, which is located at the Headquarters of the Dept. of the Army, it really doesn't matter what kind of case I present, they can deny it and make up any number of reasons why they don't think I'm sincere enough to be granted CO status. This is why my only option now is to make noise and let them know that people know about this and that this cannot and will not be swept under a carpet as they are so used to having the privilege of doing. |
For those of you who don't know, yesterday morning (13 NOV 03) I, Diedra Cobb, a 21yr old female from Urbana, IL, found out that my conscientious objector case was denied. I have been struggling through this case since Jan. 03, living in barracks in which I currently reside at Aberdeen Proving Ground in MD. This denial of my case means that I can now be called upon to go to Iraq, and that I will be starting the process of filing a writ of habeus corpus case at the federal court level to appeal this decision. The problem is that in these times of militaristic machismo coupled with a great shortage for the type of lengthy war that we are waging, they need people. If they lose too many people, they will have to reinstate the draft and this is a move that would kill president Bush's election campaign in the upcoming election. So I'm in a situation where I presented a strong case (from what I've been told the orgs that have aided me), however, since the final decision is left up to a military committee called The Conscientious Objector Review Board, which is located at the Headquarters of the Dept. of the Army, it really doesn't matter what kind of case I present, they can deny it and make up any number of reasons why they don't think I'm sincere enough to be granted CO status. This is why my only option now is to make noise and let them know that people know about this and that this cannot and will not be swept under a carpet as they are so used to having the privilege of doing.
Please show your support by writing in on my behalf. Below is an outline of what could be said in a letter supporting me in case you have no clue what to write. But of course you can write whatever you want on my behalf, and it will be appreciated.
Well, it's going to be a struggle, but thank you so much for your support and no matter the decision on the military's part, I know my decision and I will stand strong.
Peace
To whom it may concern (enter one of the point of contact's names from below)
I, (your name), know (or, know of) SPC Cobb, Diedra A. in (state how you know me) capacity. I am writing in support of her being released from the US Army and to acknowledge that she has clearly demonstrated that she will take no part in the destruction being carried out by our armed forces. It is out of good intentions and integrity, not a fluke, that she has submitted her conscientious objector packet, which has unfortunately been denied. I am also writing to ask that her case be reexamined and to demand that she be released. It is not due to cowardice, insubordination, or any other short-coming that Diedra Cobb has come to the decision of leaving the military. It is only through many hours of thought, education, and testing her personal convictions as to what is right for humanity that she has come to the conclusion that her affiliation with the military is one that she must sever. I believe that if you consider the fact that she had tried to begin her CO case at a unit which misled her, take the time to reexamine the evidence that she has presented in her CO case, and consider that her position has not changed despite the length of time that she has had to wait, you will realize that she should rightfully be released from the military. Last but not least, I am writing to inform you that she will not serve as an instrument of destruction in your militia of unjust wars and to demand that she be released!
sign your name and send it
Points of Contact (writing the senator and rep will hold the most weight, but if you can, send the letter you write to all of these people):
1. My senator (Illinois)
Senator Richard J. Durbin
525 South Eigth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
ph: 217-492-4062
fax: 217-492-4382
email: dick (at) durbin.senate.gov
2. My representative (15th District, Illinois)
Representative Timothy V. Johnson
2004 Fox Drive
Champaign, IL 61820
ph: 217-403-4690
fax: 217-403-4691
electronic contact: http://www.house.gov/writerep ; Illinois, 61801
3. My commander (203d MI BN, Aberdeen Proving Ground)
CPT Fenske, Brad D.
203D MI BN
Bldg 4727 Deer Creek Loop
APG, MD 21005
4. The commander of my commander (656th Area Support Group)
COL Skoll, John J.
656th ASG Bldg 176 NAS
Willow Grove, PA 19090-5110
5. The inspector general (99th Regional Support Command)
Attn: AFRC-CPA-IG
99th RSC
99 Soldiers Lane
Coraopolis, PA 15108-2550
|
Comments
|
Re: Support The Resistance-You Signed The Line Girly |
by True American
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 4
14 Nov 2003
|
If I am correct you signed your name on the dotted line. You VOLUNTEERED to serve in the military. You are being paid by the military. You probably are earning credit towards the college fund/GI bill even as you type your message. Fulfill your obligation like you promised to do. When you were sworn in you said 'I swear to defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic'. Well now, looks to me like you have yourself a threat. GO DEFEND IT and quit your crying.
Oh and one more thing. While you are simpering there licking your wounds, practice your hand to hand combat... when you get to Iraq you will need it! |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by "Jack Ryan"
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
14 Nov 2003
|
Like all conservatives, I strive to be consistent. As a patriot, and a believer in the wisdom of our founding fathers, I support their firm belief that one's conscience is answerable to higher truths than those embodied in the laws of the state. If a war is immoral, any previous commitments and agreements must be null and void. Otherwise, one would be shirking their obligation to act in accord objective moral truth as best they can (which, as a conservative who is consistent, I uphold). Therefore the decisions of conscientious objecters should be respected. As Thomas Jefferson said:
"The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit [to the state]. We are answerable for them to our God."
-"Jack Ryan" |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by frmmr navy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Nov 2003
Modified: 02:29:31 PM |
|
I would have to support you seeing as how if I hadn't got out I might be over there because i was a seabee. But how long ago did you join. If you joined after September 11th what did you think was going to happen when the military and nation are on red and yellow alert.But stand your ground make a sacrifice If it were me I would go to prison before I fought in this oil war. |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by Mark Specht
specht_mark (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 2
14 Nov 2003
Modified: 03:03:19 PM |
Did you, or did you not join the military?
Militaries, as I understand it, tend more than most organizations to be involved in wars (shooting, bombing, etc...). Did this tidbit escape you when you joined?
I can't say that I have much sympathy for your plight.
You knew the agreement when you joined. They've given you everything you need plus promises of a college education. So far, I don't think you've given them anything. Training doesn't count. The purpose of the military is not to train. That'd be, well, pointless. This just happens to be the time for you to live up to your end of the bargain.
|
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by RickyR
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -4
14 Nov 2003
|
OK Diedra,I sent that letter off to all 5 points of contact. Oh, I took the liberty of changing a few words in the body of the text. See below:
To whom it may concern (enter one of the point of contact's names from below)
I, (your name), know (or, know of) SPC Cobb, Diedra A. in (state how you know me) capacity. I am writing to argue against her being released from the US Army and to acknowledge that she has clearly demonstrated that she must be forced to take part in the destruction being carried out by our armed forces. It is out of bad intentions and lack of integrity, not a fluke, that she has submitted her conscientious objector packet, which has fortunately been denied. I am also writing to ask that her case not be reexamined and to demand that she be retained. It is due to cowardice, insubordination, and other short-comings that Diedra Cobb has come to the decision of leaving the military. It is only through many hours of thought, education, and testing her personal convictions as to what is right for herself that she has come to the conclusion that her affiliation with the military is one that she must sever. I believe that if you consider the fact that she had tried to begin her CO case at a unit which misled her, take the time to reexamine the evidence that she has presented in her CO case, and consider that her position has not changed despite the length of time that she has had to wait, you will realize that she should rightfully be kept in the military. Last but least, I am writing to inform you that she will serve as an instrument of destruction in your militia of just wars and to demand that she be retained! |
|
Re: Support The Resistance-Right On Mark Specht |
by JMohr
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 4
14 Nov 2003
Modified: 03:39:28 PM |
You are exactly right Mark. The military gives decent college money to high school grads who join... Only after a declaration of war is passed do they realize what they joined.
True American said it best when he said 'Fulfill your obligation like you promised to do.'
|
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by kphilo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
14 Nov 2003
|
Re: RickyR
The behavior of the right wing in this country is simply beyond belief. Instead of argument, we get vicious personal attack. What ever happened to reasoned debate, and minimum standards of politeness? (And don't give me that "They started it" nonsense. You are not justified in debasing yourself because someone else did. And it is a rare liberal who reaches the levels of vulgarity and nastiness found on the right.)It's rather surreal to hear the same people who let loose psychopathic tirades that would make a sailor blush, turn around and bemoan the decline of decency and traditional values. You are either in favor of decent, civil society, or you are not. Make up your mind. |
|
YES: She Can Conscientiously Object |
by Yes Dierdre is right
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
15 Nov 2003
|
Dear Diedre,
Yes, you are indeed a conscientious objector: you see the truth that the war is about rich men becoming richer, not about weapons of mass destruction or about making Iraqi citizens freer or safer. I don't know if you qualify for official status as an objector... they may not allow you to decide that you object to particular wars if you are contracted as a soldier. (ie. yes you'll fight against Hitler, no you won't fight to make Bush and Halliburton/Bechtel richer) However, that does NOT mean that you have to support this war. You can refuse, even if that means going to prison. If you do go to prison, you will be sacrificing some time being incarcerated in exchange for peace in your heart because you know you objected to the murder and robbery of the Iraq people. I wish you strength, and peace within yourself: refusing to obey evil orders is the right thing to do. Best wishes to you. |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by Anti-war Veteran
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 13
15 Nov 2003
Modified: 04:56:48 AM |
pro-war assholes:
i am a former marine who served in the first gulf war, and i have a question for you: if you are so gung-ho, why aren't you over there choking on sand right now? why are you sitting on your supposedly patriotic ass, safe and sound in the good old usa? is your idea of honor and duty surfing the internet and posting on an anti-war bulletin board while others are dying for you and your cause? you are hypocrites and cowards.
diedra,
you are doing the right thing. i am a former marine and i went through the same type of thing during and after the first gulf war. luckily i made it out, unlike my high school best friend who joined up a year before me, he was infantry and he's messed up for life.
to hell with all these hypocritical flag-wavers and their rhetoric about the so-called contract you signed. that fake contract is not worth the paper it's printed on, any lawyer can tell you that. if it was, the military would be constantly getting sued for breaking their end of the bargain.
anyway sister it takes true courage to stand up to these bullies. best wishes and remember you are far from alone. there are a lot of us out there, and the longer this fraudulent, criminal war goes on, the more of us there will be. the reason they are being so hard on you is because they want to set an example, the military works on the sheep mentality and those bastards fear one of the flock going astray. the more the better. you will give others ideas and courage. stay strong. |
|
Re: Anti-war Veteran |
by Veteran too
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
15 Nov 2003
|
|
So, the new legal language of the signing contract should read, "I swear to defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic...unless I disagree with the orders I am given". Wow, that should make for a very effective military. I think you are really on to something here! |
|
Response |
by Diedra Cobb
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 8
15 Nov 2003
Modified: 03:32:22 PM |
I am delighted that so many people have taken the time to respond to my entry. I will let you know a little bit about me, since some seem to have assumed things about me that are not accurate. I have received no educational money from the military. I am not eligible for the GI Bill, which you have to sign up for when you first enlist or you will not receive it. I deliberately signed up believing that I would "defend" our country, not take irrationally aggressive actions towards others, and that our leaders would be much more rational with placing the lives of my fellow Americans at risk, and the world for that matter. Before I went to the recruiter to sign up for the Army, I had considered joining the Peace Corps, however one needs a bachelors degree for most of their programs, which I do not yet have. In addition, yes I joined the military after Sept. 11, and since being out here on the east coast I have met several families who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11 attacks. I think it is fair to say that no one knew that this would be the outcome of the horrible actions that were carried out on 9/11. It was a time where we could have stepped up to the plate with a level head and formed an extremely powerful bond with the world, as so many countries were openly crying out for a peaceful answer. Instead our leaders lost their heads and hastily pointed fingers, and as a result many of my fellow soldiers, along with many innocent Iraqi civilians, are literally loosing theirs. My conscientious objection came before I was ever notified that I was to be deployed because I felt that it was my duty to have the integrity to resist an organization that participates in activities such as the ones that I have become familiar with only after having joined the military. Peace cannot be achieved through war and it is my right to be fairly judged in the process of obtaining conscientious objector status. If one looks at the history of conscientious objection, it is not hard to see that an unfair example is made of those who resist in the military in order to send a message to other soldiers about what hell they will have to go through if they ever come to the point of disagreeing with what is being asked of them and decide to do the same; which effectively deters many soldiers from resisting despite strong feelings against what they are being asked to do. And as for my general feelings about the military since entering, and the reason for my objection, I will leave you with this:
Never before have I seen such beautiful, tender people turn to such desperate measures to make something of oneself in this ‘No Child Left Behind’ society. But then again I have been in this world but 21 years and what do I know? I write to you all addressing you as people who have come together in opposition to a disgustingly inhumane, destructive, and pervasive force. Keep your people ignorant, but make them feel important by taking ownership of that ignorance, and you can guide them in the direction of your desires. The United States of America has mastered this; a full-fledged organizational dictatorship of super-power proportions. Our US of A, free, but censored, mass media does not teach us about this and, thus, is able to continue on its path unrecognized and praised as being THE prime example of democracy. Many ask, how could I have entered the military and not known the magnitude of what it meant. And I ponder . . . when a bird is sheltered and at last, released to fly, how is it to know the meaning behind all that it will encounter? I write to you to say that I joined the Army thinking that I was, quite possibly, upholding some of the mightiest of ideals for the greatest, most powerful country on this earth. Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage; these are the seven Army values, values that I wanted to be able to say that I cherished and possessed. But still they ask, “How could I have not seen it?” Spare the rod and save the child I would have answered. There had to be some good that would come of the carnage, in the end. But this is where I made my mistake because in war there is no end. We are still in Germany, we are still in Korea, we are still in Bosnia, hell, we’re still in America. The list goes on and on and the only things that are determined are who will stay and who will go, who will live and who will die, who will rule and who will serve. I did not know that peace cannot come from war because war never ends. And now when bombarded with questions about why I joined, what I thought this would be and, “are you serious?” Yes! I scream yes! And my soul pours our the answers that I wish my brain could formulate in my head, so that my lips could begin to utter this tragedy that is happening before my eyes, but that is so hard to get others, who are blind as I was, to see. In life, awakening to beauty and tragedy is a natural progression. We, my friends of the US, do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic, remember the pledge of allegiance, “I pledge allegiance to the flag . . . and the REPUBLIC for which it stands.” Republic: a state or other political unit with a form of government in which the supreme power is in the hands of the representatives elected by the people. We, the patriotically unknowing, of the United States of America elect these people to make decisions in the name of the people. And when the people rise up and thrash about screaming, “No more, not in our name,” they laugh and denounce us before those who are blind as traitors.
Almost daily I hear the weapons they test at this post explode and feel the foundation of the building that I am standing in rattle its metal innards and I realize that the wait that I must endure through this conscientious objector process is nothing compared to the terror that our weapons will inflict upon the people that they are deliberately, and too often, ‘accidentally’ are targeting, and so this is why I must continue.
As an intelligence analyst for the US Army, I throw down my arms and refuse to plot against the so-called enemy. I have no grand political plan. With access to classified information provided only on a need-to-know basis, even for those such as myself with a Top Secret security clearance, information, which is constantly shifting here and there, and what you thought was once no longer is two seconds later, is a distant illusion. How can the American people claim to know anything? The only knowledge that I have, as I participated in this operation, is of a grand psychological scam. Uncle Sam (the corporate elite) pays off his military welfare killers and gives them big titles, so that they can feel important about themselves, while CNN and other Big-business media sources provide justification to the people by showing riveting, and shocking, pictures with captions that establish the US’s moral pillars. I declare I will wash my hands of this filthy moral and humanitarian tragedy once and for all. My eyes are awake now, thank you Mr. President. The Army never did a better job with instilling those seven values in a qualified and anxious soldier. Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage are the values that have guided me through this process.
I now talk to those who felt a much larger rattle from weapons ten times the size of the weapons that are tested here on this post; and to those who were demolished before they could ever feel the rattle; and to those who survived the injuries, both physical and mental, from those great big horrid rattles ľ my objection is in your name; my people of Afghanistan, Vietnam, Vieques, New York, Columbia, Bosnia and the list is too long to even begin to touch on all those that are to be included. The world is to be included.
It’s as though I’ve been born again and I’m standing here looking at the world with these great big eyes and so many beautiful faces are staring back at me. And I see so many being infected with so much hate and greed and blind conformity; one following right after another in a daze, in a trance, in such a terribly deep trance; it’s overwhelming, my heart bleeds. And I sit here in limbo telling the world MY story, which is our story, so that those who may have even a snippet of curiosity about why so many people are screaming, “Not in Our Name!” may have some inspiration. Or possibly those who have a passion for peace that needs to be revived by realizing that you do make a difference because it is the small parts that make up the whole, and oh what a powerful energy that whole exudes when one chooses peace and love and compassion!
After thousands of years of war,
And we are still too blind to see,
That all we are accomplishing,
Is the death of you and me.
“Be the change that you wish to see in the world.” – Ghandi
Peace is the answer
|
|
Re: Veteran Too |
by Anti-war veteran
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 5
16 Nov 2003
Modified: 01:02:10 PM |
as a vet, i have a lot more respect for you and your opinion than i do the majority of the pro-war people i encounter, who seem to ok letting someone else do the fighting and dying. that said, i don't understand why you would try to defend what is happening in iraq right now.
as for this nuremburg defense arguement you present - for the sake of argument, let's say that signing the military contract does indeed obligate you to kill babies, rape women, violate the geneva convention etc. if ordered to do so by your commander. don't you think that at some point personal moral judgement has to come into play? what if, for example, we find out that those in charge lied to us about the supposed "threat"? do we follow them off a cliff like lemmings?
all the anti-war rhetoric aside, and the arguments about oil and whatnot - which are worth considering, if you haven't - at what point do you stand up and resist illegal orders? never? is that because of a piece of paper, that, as diedra pointed out, is signed by many of us before we have been out in the world and actually comprehend what it is we're signing? seriously, my friend, that's the argument used by the nazis at nuremburg, and it just doesn't hold water.
whether you acknowledge it or not, you have personal responsibility when you participate in atrocity. and make no mistake, this "war" is nothing short of atrocity. if you don't think so, then you have been watching too much fox news and not getting the full story. either that, or you don't care, which i can't do much about except to point out that your apathy does not make you any less culpable. being against this war and questioning what we are doing in iraq, especially now that we are civilians, is not stabbing our troops in the back (despite what bush and co. say.) if anything it's our duty as former military to ensure that their lives aren't wasted on frivolous, morally questionable involvements.
i know that conscientious objectors piss off a lot of vets who see them as sandbaggers, but it really isn't about cowardice or shirking duty. if it was they would just go awol instead of facing the music and presenting their case. i know, you don't see it that way, but the main point is that the people running this country now are criminals! i mean some of their best buddies and business partners, namely ken lay of enron etc. have been busted in criminal acts! the bush family is in bed with the bin laden family! is any of this getting through? tell me, at what point do you refuse to follow the orders of people who are proven criminals and liars and murderers? |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by Diedra Cobb
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Nov 2003
Modified: 03:39:40 PM |
|
Thank you very much to those who understand where I am coming from and who have shown support by writing a letter on my behalf. I have already been informed that it is making people in high positions very uncomfortable, which means that it is having an impact. I will leave you all this time by saying that I know it's going to be a struggle in these times for all of us, but in my case, no matter the decision on the military's part, I know my decision and I will stand strong in my resistance. Thanks again, your support is very much appreciated. |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by JMohr
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Nov 2003
|
I would like to set something straight. I never said I was 'Pro War'. I said I am Pro fullfilling your obligation. Diedra made an oath to God and Country to defend this Nation. Now that there is a chance she may have to follow thru with her end of the bargain she wants out.
All this time she has been getting paid to train for this time in her enlistment. The time and efforts of her superiors have been spent ensuring she is as safe as possible and able to accomplish her mission.
Too many times in this day and age do people 'sign the line' and then want out when things are rough. Diedra works in a rear echilon unit, she is not a combat arms M.O.S. How deep into trouble does she expect to be? She probably would be stationed in Kuwait or Saudi if her unit even WAS activated.
After living the soft life stateside in Maryland she may now have to do some time in the Middle East, I say you either do your tour like you agreed to do, or you finish your enlistment at Ft. Leavenworth.
If you disagree with our President, vote him out of office. Don't ruin the teamwork and morale of your unit. I sent letters to both your Company commander and your Bn commander expressing my views. From ALL of the e-mails I have received from your command chain you had better be ready to try on those desert B.D.U.'s.
|
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by paul wood
pwood (nospam) news-gazette.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 Nov 2003
|
|
I'm a reporter at the Champaign newspaper and would be interested in talking with you. You can email me or call me at 217-351-5203 |
|
What Happened To "support Our Troops?" |
by JF
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 4
17 Nov 2003
Modified: 12:09:31 PM |
I don't think anyone on this thread needs to repeat the argument that Dierdra volunteered to serve and therefore must serve against her own conscience.
Anyone who believes that people should act against their own consciences is morally bankrupt.
Those who doubt that Dierdra is motivated by her conscience show her great disrespect.
Dierdra is not asking you to agree with her. She is only asking for support.
I support our troops who are fighting this war in good conscience. I believe they are being misled, and I do not support the leaders who mislead them.
I also support our troops who, like Dierdra, cannot fight this war in good conscience. They know they are being misled and refuse to be misled.
That is what it means to support our troops. If you support only the troops who comply absolutely unquestioningly with what they're ordered to do, ignoring their own moral judgments, then you are really only supporting our troops' leaders. Given the disastrous course of the occupation, I find it incredible that anyone could support those leaders without major reservations, concerns, and questions. |
|
Support Our Troops |
by Voice of reason
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
17 Nov 2003
Modified: 01:10:47 PM |
JF, when you talk about supporting our corrupt leaders, are you refering to our military leaders or the White House. If you are refering to our military leaders than why were these leaders considered so good during Clintons administration but so corrupt now?
If you are refering to the White House being corrupt than I would remind you that regardless of what the civilian world thinks of President Bush, he is still the Commander in Chief and incharge of Diedra. You cannot allow troops to pick and choose which orders they follow. If you allow that then you have no military. If the men who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had refused to drop the bombs how many more American men would have died taking Japan. Your conscious is over-ruled by your orders within limits.
The military does not order its soldiers to rape women and kill children. It does order them to restore peace, protect the innocent and feed the people.
As far as the disastrous course of the occupation is concerned. In what aspects is it a disaster. The fact that these people will be holding the first free elections in their lifetimes? The fact that these people are allowed to walk the streets without being raped and beaten by Saddams sons? The fact that the executions conducted by Husseins regime are over?
I am fully expecting all kinds of Leftist jabbering about how the American forces are doing those things right now. That jabbering is coming from people sitting at home (or work) in a heated building eating their bagles and sipping coffee. It is not coming from the soldiers who sacrifice their own food to feed the starving Iraqi's and sacrifice their own safety to provide safety to the Iraqi people.
But of course Clinton was so much better in the White House wasn't he? Even while he was getting Hinklemeyers in the Oval office.
I can only imagine what this Nation would have been in for if Gore would have been elected (shudder...). |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by Governater
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 14
17 Nov 2003
|
There is a difference between not following orders, and opting out of an entire war in the name of conscience. IF you go to war, you should follow most orders (excepting grossly immoral ones- the soldiers in Vietnam who stood up to that psychopath Calley at Mi Lai were not traitors). But it does not, as a matter of historical fact, fatally undermine our military if some people refuse to go in the first place.
And what if enough soldiers refused to fight that it seriously affected the military? Then that's a war we shouldn't be fighting in the first place. There are more than enough people dumb enough to think George Bush's policies are a good idea, that Deirdre's place can be taken easily.
|
|
Support The Resistance-You Signed The Line Girly |
by True American
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
17 Nov 2003
Modified: 03:07:16 PM |
In following with my previous statement on Nov. 14th I would like to offer a compromise. I know the few intelligent Conservatives on this subject will not change their views.
I also know the many uneducated Liberals will not change their views.
So, I have thought the subject thru and offer this compromise.
1)Diedra Cobb can sit out this war if she agrees to repay all of the money given to her by this great Nation. She also must never speak of any affiliation with the military, or even that she at one time was in the military. She also must promise to never bear children so as to eliminate any chance future armies might be sucked into her cowardise world.
2)Diedra Cobb must spend the remainder of her enlistment at one of the many fine dance clubs in the vacinity of Aberdeen Proving Grounds. If she does not fill the quota of aesthetics to work in such places she be allowed to have a nice all expense paid trip to Fort Leavenworth (I hear the swamps are especially romantic this time of year).
3) All of the Conservative people who have expressed opinions on this topic refrain from posting further messages on this web site. It is obvious the Liberal element likes a place to call home (as no-one else will have them) and we should let them have their toys.
4) All people who sent messages to Deidra's commanders (except for RickyR because he/she had some originality with his/her message and I respect that) must send letters to say they were misguided and they call back their comments (as Deidra has a new set of guidelines to pass).
If Deidra does not accept these conditions (which I am sure she won't because she seems to have a problem following through with commitment) she should be sent on the next C130 and dropped in the middle of a Baathist headquarters (maybe they would appreciate her whining because people over here are getting sick of it).
I would like to close this very intelligent and patriotic message by saying that President Bush is the best President we have had since George Washington. I will be honored to call him President when he is re-elected and I would pray for the chance to be in the military so I could rape some women and murder some babies like some of you Liberal idiots claim happen. God Bless America, our Soldiers (who actually stay in), our President, and me.
|
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
17 Nov 2003
|
Dear Ms. Cobb,
I have no problem with the conscientious objector status. I would rather find out that you could not fire your weapon now than lying next to you in a fire fight. However, are you going to reimburse the military for the expense they wasted on your education, training etc. or like most liberals do you expect to get something for nothing?
Just curious,
Jack
|
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by Risa Burlona
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 12
17 Nov 2003
|
I'm afraid that if Diedra wants to avoid combat, she going about it in completely the wrong way. See, what she ought to do is this: first, get a rich daddy--preferably a rich, Republican daddy. Then, her rich daddy should get her assigned to a special National Guard unit of spoiled, rich, lazy, incompetent, conservative cowards. Then, Diedra shouldn't even trouble herself for reporting for duty for, oh, about eighteen months. After partying her way through "major combat," while the "less fortunate" are dying for their country, Diedra should then become a spoiled, rich, lazy, incompetent, conservative, cowardly businessperson. If Diedra were to implement this plan, her erstwhile critics (if they remain true to form) ought to forgiver her. In fact, they might even elect her president.
Kidding aside, Diedra's case was lost the minute she joined up. If she didn't want to be cannon fodder for the oil companies, she should have avoided serving altogether. After all, that tactic worked for Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, etc., etc.
|
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by Johnny Lawless
bush (nospam) projectforthenewamericancentury.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 Nov 2003
Modified: 07:13:01 PM |
Dear Diedra:
This is what you do: In all sincerity, you should immediately begin sending your paycheck to the New York Times with an explanation of why the war in Iraq is unjust, immoral, founded upon "misstatements," and being waged with evil intent by global Federalists.
Many seasoned protestors wisely believe the U.S. attacks on oil producing countries will not end until their is mutiny in the military as in Vietnam. When the New York Times calls your commander to comment on your story, you are likely to be released from your military obligations.
Finally, for anyone interested in a tremendously relevant movie make sure you see "The Revolution will not be Televised." A documentary about the attempted coup of democratically elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. No matter your political bias, it is an eye opening inside account of a military coup, then a counter-coup 48 hours later, and exposure of how the corporate news media reported the events. Contact the New Art Theatre and ask that they show the film that is being praised around the country. For more information see www.chavezthefilm.com.
Peace and good luck to you Diedra,
Johnny Lawless
PS "Dick Cheney Before Cheney Dicks You"
|
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by frmr navy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
17 Nov 2003
Modified: 08:19:36 PM |
|
i read your comment and I have to say I am sorry you are in this position...I was already in the Nvy when the attacks happened so it seemed more obvious to me....Diedra ..I will write your commander and everyone involved I will tell friends about it...If you do get deployed I will contact you and write you...stand your groun this criminal war is wrong this war on terrorism is wrong ang all those bactards who say you should fisht are sitting at home with micky d's in one hand and bud light in the other.They don't know I do ..Some of my old seabee pals are dead...My dad is a vet..I still see no reason for why they had to go through what they did ...stay stong denounce every medal every ribbon it is not worht it ...get out when you can |
|
Re: Atrocities And War |
by Anti-war vet
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 6
17 Nov 2003
Modified: 10:25:47 PM |
hey voice of reason,
as far your serious ignorance and/or denial of what criminal acts our military has engaged in and is still engaging in, it's not "leftists sitting at home" where i get my info from. it's from first-hand experience and from other countless vets who have witnessed or have been a part of these horrendous acts (above and beyond what is considered "acceptable" in war, whatever that means.) sure, cnn doesn't run these stories too often. but it's not because it doesn't happen a lot.
politics aside, war is no picnic and it ain't no hollywood movie. children are killed regularly by our troops, and the rules go out the window when the lead starts flying. and don't tell me "they didn't mean to do it," the fact is, when you fire off your weapon or sling some ordance downrange, you have no idea what is out there. and that's just the times when it's an "accident."
that historical revisionist crap about us saving american lives by dropping fat man and little boy on japan is insulting to the innocent lives lost. it was more like a show of strength to intimidate the u.s.s.r., and it worked, at least initially. but you go on believing what you want to, it seems like most americans have this fairy tale version of history (and current events) that they rock themselves to sleep with at night. it just isn't consistent with historical evidence not to mention what most of the rest of the world sees. |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by Ditto
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
17 Nov 2003
|
|
Jack forgot to mention it a couple of posts ago, but when we conservatives condemn you liberals for wanting "something for nothing", we are also including all those U.S. farmers who get massive government subsidies, and those companies like Halliburton that get fat taxpayer-funded government contracts not on merit, but on connections. We recognize that anyone who gets something for nothing is basically a communist. |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by True American
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
18 Nov 2003
Modified: 06:20:52 AM |
Blah Blah Blah Blah.... Yadda Yadda Yadda... would you whiney assed Peacniks please get some new lines. I have been hearing this crap now my entire life (except for when Kennedy was in office).
Oil war, war attrocities, killing babies, innocent people dying in Japan.
What do you idiots put in your cars because your too damn lazy to ride a bike? Gas... which comes from... oil. When a kid straps exposives to himself (in violation of the Geneva Convention) it is a war attrocity. When bad guys hole up in a house with kids should we leave them be? What was Pearl Harbor? An attack on innocence. What was 9/11? or do you commie leftist socialist nutsacks think that was a dream?
I will answer all problems in Iraq and can give them a new natural resource. We drop about 5 nuclear bombs on that whole terrorist producing, cowardly assed country and they can export glass.
You people embarrass me to call yourselves American. You are not worthy to wipe the Presidents dog's ass.
I regress... the point of this message is to re-affirm that Deidra is a coward and should be shot for treason and cowardise. That is my humble, moderately Conservative opinion (atleast thats what the voices in my head are telling me). |
|
No Enemy There, Foreign Or Domestic. Sorry, Boys. |
by Mark Bee
sorry, no anonymous revenge today, kids (unverified) |
Current rating: 17
18 Nov 2003
Modified: 01:49:37 PM |
I get a big kick out of the conservos here who claim that Diedra's promise to defend us from all enemies, foreign and domestic, has anything to do with Iraq. The pacifists here generally don't believe in just wars, so they probably won't use this argument, but I'm no pacifist - and boys, I'm afraid you're a little behind the news. Bush has come out and verified what these anti-war people had been saying for months - Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Did you miss it on Fox? No surprise there.
If you do want to talk about 9/11, we can start with one of Rumsfeld's first acts; pulling the three AC-130 Spectre gunships Clinton sent to Syria under special treaty specifically to get Bin Laden - and cancelling the fasttrack development of the Hellfire/Predator drone system, also designed to get Bin Laden - just as soon as he got in office. Didn't know about that either, did ya? Don't take my word for it, look it up.
This war does absolutely nothing for the United States. That's right, absolutely nothing whatsoever. In a world where the armed forces were really used to protect the Constitution, the COS would have told Bush to stick it up his ass as soon as the hilariously-named U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act was rammed through Congress by traitors to the Constitution - and let's not forget Cheney, Perle, and Wolfowitz, who signed a document supporting an invasion of Iraq for purposes of cementing our oil supply (whether Saddam is there or not, it says), for 'Project for a New American Century' back in 1999, and now want to buy it with American blood. Don't believe me? Check the PNAC website, it's still up.
Tell ya what - all you anonymous armchair generals who think one conscientious objector can deflate the US military (just like in WWII, right? heh), just tell us where you served, and with what unit, and then we'll know why anyone should listen to a damned deluded word you say. You can even keep hiding behind your little nicknames. After all, that's real American pride there, talking about shooting servicewomen and dropping nukes while hiding behind those little fake names like 'True American'.
Oops - did I say pride? I meant craven cowardice, dang me. |
|
No Enemy There, Foreign Or Domestic. Sorry, Boys. |
by Citizen X
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Nov 2003
|
Mark Bee, Your message has what to do with this original topic? Though I agree with your statements and I think True American may need professional help, attacking him is not the method we would like this forum to adopt.
It sounds as though he is writing his messages to excite the people here. |
|
No Enemy There, Foreign Or Domestic. Sorry, Boys. |
by True American
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
20 Nov 2003
|
Well Mr. Bee, that is some pretty solid info you have there (no links, no sources- just Liberal propaganda). As for my name, does it matter? If you don't want to call me True American call me Uncle Sam.
I served 2 tours in Vietnam with the 1/44 ADA out of Da Nang. Where did you serve? Airforce in 1981?
You never addressed the traitor Deidra. Learn what the subject really is nutsack would you? Thank you for your support. TA |
|
War Critics Astonished As US Hawk Admits Invasion Was Illegal |
by via the Wires
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
20 Nov 2003
Modified: 09:23:20 AM |
Evidence? Sources?
Don't you read the papers, TA?
Here's even more evidence, in case you haven't been paying attention, TA. It should be noted that the Nuremburg Principles on aggressive war also apply here and no amount of citing "orders" excuses any soldier from avoiding their personal responsibility under international law. Given the lawless nature of the current regime in Washington, for many, if not most, soldiers, the only way to avoid complicity in war crimes is to leave the service. Furthermore, conscientous objection IS provided for under U.S. law and custom. Preventing Diedre from exercising her right to invoke it is just one more war crime that the criminal creeps in the White House and Pentagon are responsible for.
TA, you're supporting a Mafia, not a government in any real sense.
The Article/Confession:
War Critics Astonished as US Hawk Admits Invasion was Illegal
by Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defense permitted by international law.
But Mr Perle, a key member of the defense policy board, which advises the US defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.
French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".
Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organized by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.
"They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it."
Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event.
Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".
The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British government and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".
Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defense, including pre-emptive self-defense On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad.
The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.
Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programs.
Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which was ended only by a ceasefire.
"I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal.
"And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along."
The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defense policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board.
Meanwhile, there was a hint that the US was trying to find a way to release the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay.
The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said Mr Bush was "very sensitive" to British sentiment. "We also expect to be resolving this in the near future," he told the BBC.
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
|
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by kphilo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 6
20 Nov 2003
Modified: 09:42:46 AM |
Re: True American
It's really amazing how common this kind of response is amongst conservatives. When faced with unpleasant truths, they simply refuse to believe them. Although conservatives can often be highly rational and rather intelligent, this makes no difference when they simply deny reality.
I've spoken to many seemingly decent, caring, intelligent people who are firmly attached to blatant falsehoods, such as "you can get by on minimum wage, so the person who cleans my house is doing just fine", or "the United States never targeted civilians in World War II".
You can't convince them otherwise, because it's all "liberal propaganda". If you provide sources, you can be fairly sure they won't check them.
Why is this? Here's my pet theory: Conservatives want the world to be a nice place, where it's always clear who the good guys and bad guys are, where good and right always triumph, and they're on the winning side. Just think of the kinds of movies conservatives love, like Saving Private Ryan, or Gladiator. For them, life is an exciting, heroic story, ultimately with a happy ending. (Which is also why, I suspect, they tend to be so religious- the good guys who die get to go to Heaven).
To hear that things are more complicated than that is very upsetting, since it threatens their very pleasant and satisfying worldview. In this context, their all-consuming rage is perfectly understandable. When we make them face reality, the facade which makes up their life threatens to collapse. But no matter how much they scream and cry, we have to keep trying to help them grow up.
|
|
THE VANISHING CASE FOR WAR |
by via Secrecy News
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
20 Nov 2003
|
The glaring inadequacy of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, at least as
presented to Congress and the public, is a gnawing problem that
will not go away.
"In the course of a 5-month investigation, the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence on a bipartisan basis has
identified serious shortcomings in the prewar intelligence on
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism," said
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), ranking member of the House
Intelligence Committee, on November 18.
"We found that sketchy and often circumstantial evidence produced
estimates that likely were substantially wrong. At a minimum,
the intelligence community overstated the strength of the
underlying data supporting its conclusions," she said.
"Unfortunately, the intelligence community has yet to acknowledge
any flaws in prewar intelligence."
Another member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Ray
LaHood (R-IL), disagreed. "This idea that we are not getting
right information or it is not perfect or it is not what we want
or it is not being used the right way, in my opinion, is
nonsense," he said.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h111803.html
Author Thomas Powers argues crisply that there was indeed
something profoundly wrong with the way U.S. intelligence on
Iraq was presented and used, and that the whole episode "will
stand for decades to come as an object lesson in secrecy and its
hazards."
"The administration's justification for war was not merely flawed
or imperfect -- it was wrong in almost every detail, and
completely wrong at the heart," he writes.
See "The Vanishing Case for War" by Thomas Powers, New York
Review of Books, December 4, 2003:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16813
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.
To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
secrecy_news-request (at) lists.fas.org
with "subscribe" in the body of the message. |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by True American
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Nov 2003
|
Here we go with the same Liberal yakking as usual. Conservatives are this, Conservatives are that. Liberals want big government, equalization of wealth, state funded programs, handouts to the lazy, punishment for the wealthy and educated, homosexuals in the military, gay marriages, a weak military, piss poor foreign policy, low morals for the American people, and fat ugly women giving blow jobs to the President in the oval office.
Stick to the subjets (for the third time). This forum is about Deidra 'Benedict Arnold' Cobb... address her treason if you would and quit your damn simpering. |
|
TA, You Need To Get Out More |
by here and now
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
21 Nov 2003
|
Turn off the Limbaugh and Fox for just a minute and get out into the real world. But as long as you're hanging around the website trolling, here's something important and educational for you to read:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/14202/index.php |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by Mark Specht
specht_mark (nospam) hotmail.com (verified) |
Current rating: -1
05 Dec 2003
Modified: 03:00:40 AM |
Deidra,
First, I want to apologize for assuming that you are enrolled in the G.I. Bill program. I was unaware that it is optional. Do you receive alternative compensation?
Second, the reason I can't support you is that it is incredibly dangerous when the military gets involved in politics. It seems to me that your job (Intelligence Analyst) would actually give you some power into what happens in a military operation; that if you perform in this job extremely well, you will actually minimize the damage a military can't help but bring. Also, you might look into changing the name of "intelligence" in the military to "information", but I digress.
I agree with you that the war in Iraq is a terrible distraction from the war on terror, but I don't see that as the issue in your case. Taking a political stance and hindering the military on an individual level may seem insignificant, but were such actions to take place on a grander scale, to the point where Generals refused to heed the orders of a president, this would lead to governmental chaos, and extreme U.S. vulnerability.
I know that General Wesley Clark (ret.) has claimed he doesn't support a draft because he wants people in the military who WANT to be there. Well, you did want to be there, but now you don't. I don't think one can operate a military that way.
On an individual level, I applaude, support, and encourage your search for the truth. Perhaps your experience and enlightenment can lead you to greater things. But for now, you do have a duty. It's a serious commitment, and I hope you find the strength and ability to do your job until your service has come to an end.
To be quite fair I will admit that I have not served in the military. I was recruited heavily out of high school; but coming from a non-military family, I thought a better use of my talents would be to educate myself. That education continues to this day, and education with which I hope to make a difference someday in the realm of foreign affairs. I hope you find a way to simultaneously fulfill you commitment and make a difference.
One last question. Am I mistaken, or do most conscientious objectors usually give notice previous to enrolling/being drafted? I'm unaware of a Supreme Court case where a volunteer has claimed conscientious objector status.
Thank you. Stay safe.
Sincerely,
Mark Specht
|
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
29 Dec 2003
|
Dear Diedra,
Are you still with us or did they "Private Eddie Slovak" your ass? Two more troops were killed today in Iraq. I wonder if one of those brave souls went in your place.
Jack |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by True American
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Dec 2003
|
Jack, when I e-mailed her battalion commander, company commander and brigade commander I was informed by all 3 that it appeared 'very unlikely' that the traiter Cobb would get her wishes. I can only hope the military is atleast close to what it was when I was in the Marines.
We can only pray that in our world, when a person commits to a contract they are forced to hold up their end of the agreement... who the hell do these people think they are, athletes? TA |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by EX MP
jjuliet23 (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
31 Dec 2003
Modified: 05:21:11 AM |
|
Deidra you have got to be kidding me!! I am a former Military Police Officer who just happens to be female. You signed on the dotted line MANY times, at the recruiting station meps etc... Are you so blind or just that stupid that you hadn't a clue to what the military was all about??? Quit being such a big baby and at least finish your initial enlistment. I was stationed for awhile at Ft Knox where there are tank ranges. So many a day the post shook. The only thing that I ever felt was jealousy that I couldn't be out there training with them. (you know me being a female and all I am not allowed) Suck it up and drive on soldier you are an embarassment to all REAL soldiers!!!! |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by The Velvet Mallet
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
03 Jan 2004
Modified: 01:46:03 PM |
I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT GETTING YOU OUT OF THE MILITARY BECAUSE:
(1) You are too stupid to allow into a combat zone where other people's lives will depend on you.
(2) You are too dishonest and amoral to allow into the armed services where the lives of many people will depend on your word and commitment. (You volunteered knowing full well that you would have to fight in armed conflict as our armed forces have been called upon to do somewhere someplace for hte past 60 years. Or what, you thought you could avoid the dirty work with a farce about CO status.)
(3) your conscience is obvioulsy too maleable to your immediate whims and desires to depend on you for anything, let alone something that might cost someone else their life. (You signed an oath, giving your word, presumably in good conscience. And now you are denying that oath. Tell us, were you lying then or are you lying now.)
(4) Dishonoralbe discharge and some time in the brig is what you need and deserve. But you absolutely should not be anywhere where your honor and your word are depended upon by anyone else. Clearly, your word is worhtless.
CO status was recognized to avoid the CONSCRIPTION of persons agaisnt their conscience. It is not to be used by the cowardly or dishonest to avoid their sworn duty. You do not measure up to the standard of those that wear the unifomr of hte US armed serviecs. As such, you should not be on active duty, but should be in the brig for cowardice adn refusal of command. |
|
Soldiers Do Have a Choice |
by Joseph E. Mulligan, S.J.
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
09 Jan 2004
|
U.S. soldiers have faced moral dilemmas in Iraq from the earliest days of the invasion. That their problems of conscience have continued is not surprising, given the nature of a military occupation by a foreign power.
"Did you see all that?" the American lieutenant asked, his eyes filled with tears. "Did you see that little baby girl? I carried her body and buried it as best I could but I had no time. It really gets to me to see children being killed like this, but we had no choice." The reporter from The Times (UK), in his article entitled "US Marines Turn Fire on Civilians at the Bridge of Death" (30 March 2003), noted that the lieutenant´s third child, Isabella, was born while he was on board ship heading to the Gulf.
A few days earlier at Nasiriya these troops had suffered the worst coalition losses of the war "and the humiliation of having prisoners paraded on Iraqi television." In one incident a US Army convoy had encountered a group of Iraqis dressed in civilian clothes, apparently wanting to surrender. When the American soldiers stopped, the Iraqis pulled out AK-47s and sprayed the US trucks with gunfire.
The baby girl held by the lieutenant was among 12 dead civilians, who had tried to flee the town to escape the oncoming forces. "Their mistake," the writer commented, "had been to flee over a bridge that is crucial to the coalition's supply lines and to run into a group of shell-shocked young American marines with orders to shoot anything that moved."
The reporter saw one man's body which was still in flames, hissing; a girl about five dead in a ditch next to the body of a man who may have been her father, who had lost half his head; nearby, a dead Iraqi woman slumped in the back seat of an old Volga. Other bodies of civilians were strewn about, one next to the carcass of a donkey. "A US Abrams tank nicknamed Ghetto Fabulous drove past the bodies."
The US officer expressed anguish over killing children but felt that he and his buddies had no choice. In reality, he did have a choice before spraying the civilians with heavy fire, but his fundamental option had come earlier: when he chose the military as his career and then shipped out to Iraq, placing himself in a hornet´s nest of violence, killing in order to avoid being killed.
Had he ever questioned any elements of the president´s stated rationale for the invasion (connection between Al-Qaeda and Hussein, large stockpiles of "weapons of mass destruction")? Ever wondered whether oil and world dominance had anything to do with his holding that little body in his arms?
Had he ever heard of Major General Smedley Butler of the US Marine Corps, twice decorated with the Congressional Medal of Honor, who in 1933 made a candid confession: "I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps.... And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914.... In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
Does the Marine lieutenant in Iraq believe that "preventive war" is anything more legal or justifiable than "aggression," as the pope labeled it? Does he know that the classic "just war" doctrine condemns a war when it starts to victimize civilians in large numbers?
If he had dealt seriously with these questions at any time before finding himself in a massacre in progress, he might have become a conscientious objector and avoided getting into the situation. Even there, he could have refused to fire on the civilians. (An inspiring moral lesson in this regard is being given by the Israeli pilots and soldiers who refuse to take part in the oppression of Palestinians.)
Thomas Gumbleton, auxiliary Catholic bishop of Detroit, and many other spiritual leaders have issued an invitation to people in military service to reflect on the morality of contemporary warfare and to follow their conscience, even if that means the possibility of court martial and prison. "We knowingly and willingly make this plea to you in violation of 18 USC Sec. 1381 and 2387," they said. "We knowingly and willingly embrace some of your risk by urging you to refuse duty in the U.S. military.
"We plead with you, as Bishop Oscar Romero pleaded with Salvadoran troops: `When you hear the words of a man telling you to kill, remember instead the words of God: Thou shalt not kill! No soldier is obliged to obey an order contrary to the law of God.... In the name of God, in the name of our tormented people who have suffered so much and whose laments cry out to heaven, I beseech you, I beg you, I order you in the name of God, stop the repression!´
"If you choose to leave the military," the invitation concludes, "please know that our hearts and homes are open to you."
Jonah House, a community of active non-violence in Baltimore, is one of the groups extending this challenging invitation to the military. The late Philip Berrigan, a founder of Jonah House, served prison sentences for actions of resistance against the Vietnam war and for his ongoing anti-nuclear work. In his autobiography, "Fighting the Lamb´s War," he wrote: "Compared to the suffering of the Vietnamese, a few years in prison seemed a very small price to pay."
Henry David Thoreau in his essay on civil disobedience had spoken about the pain of a violated conscience: "When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man´s real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now." (Thoreau was jailed for his opposition to the U.S. war against Mexico.)
"Is non-cooperation more difficult than living with the poisons of war in your body and spirit?" Gumbleton and the other signers ask. "Do what your heart says is right."
Joseph E. Mulligan, a Jesuit priest living in Nicaragua, works on human-rights issues in Central America. He and about 44 others will go on trial on Jan. 26 in Columbus, Ga., charged with trespassing; on Nov. 23, 2003 they walked onto the base at Ft. Benning to protest against the School of the Americas (now called Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation). For more information, see www.soaw.org |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by James Mortland
mortland1976 (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 9
15 Jan 2004
|
SPC Cobb presents an interesting problem. On the one hand, she was not compelled to enlist through Selective Service (there is no draft, and not likely to be one soon) or under duress (no one held a gun to her head to make her sign up for military service). On the other hand, from a personal standpoint, no one should be compelled to fight if their personal values change such that during the course of their military service, they find such service in direct conflict with those personal values. From a commander's standpoint, it is counterproductive to the unit's mission to compel someone who is so vocally opposed to military service to continue to serve.
However, because the problem arose from within the military, rather than from a CO complaint from a draftee to a draft board, it seems logical that a military-staffed review board should handle the case. In such boards, there exist concrete standards that must be met in order to achieve such goals as separation from service.
SPC Cobb is able to apply for either 1-0 Status, providing for separation from service or reassignment to non-combatant duties, 1-A-0 status. "Non-combatant duties" may indicate a non-deployable status, keeping the CO in CONUS. Both CO statuses require HQDA approval with a very high-ranking officer's signature and a review board hearing.
The standard that must be met is found in Army Regulation 600-43, "Conscientious Objectors," Appendix D. That standard is as follows:
A "fixed and sincere objection to participating in war in any form or the bearing of arms by reason of religious training and belief." This could be any sincerely held moral or ethical belief held with the strength of a religious conviction.
The problem arises with the fact that this separation request is political in nature. Although it is not a Selective Service case, the same standard is used and published on the Selective Service website, in accordance with AR 600-43.
"Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims." (The word "Man" is used in place of "person" because this wording was drawn directly from the Selective Service website, used for the drafting of men into the military in time of extreme crisis.)
In light of this information, it is clear that SPC Cobb has not met the standard for seperation for service or for reassignment to non-deployable status under 1-0 or 1-A-0 published requirements under AR 600-43. The reason for this is that SPC Cobb is requesting CO status because of her objection to the particular overseas conflicts of which she is likely to be a part in the near future. The precedent that approval of CO status for SPC Cobb would set undermines the Chain-of-Command system that the military relies on at the highest levels of command; in particular, refusal to fulfill obligations under her contract and in contradiction of deployment orders consitutes disobeying a lawful order that was passed down from the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defence, an offense punishable under the UCMJ.
Additional information concerning CO status requests can be found in the following unclassified documents:
Army Regulation 600-43 (15MAY98) "Conscientious Objectors"
Army Regulation 614-30 (01MAY97) "Overseas Assignments"
DOD Directive 1300.6 (30AUG71) "Conscientious Objectors"
US v. Walker 41 MJ 462 (CAAF 1995) |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by James Mortland
mortland1976 (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 9
15 Jan 2004
|
I thought I should qualify my final statement in the last comment about SPC Cobb's refusal to follow a deployment order as constituting "refusal to obey a lawful order" under the UCMJ.
Under the joint congressional "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002," under authorization by the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress granted the President express permission to use US military forces for regime change in Iraq, which he did. The authorization, in Section 2, SUPPORTS, but does not REQUIRE the president to obtain "prompt and decisive action from the UN Security Council;" the resolution further states in Section 3 that the president is authorized the use of US military forces, in unilateral action if necessary, against Iraq, pursuant to enforcement of several previous UN security resolutions.
THEREFORE, as authorized by congress under the War Powers Act, any DEPLOYMENT order (emphasis on DEPLOYMENT) the president as Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of Defense give affecting US troop movement to Iraq is a lawful order for all affected service personnel.
Now, given that Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq under questionable evidence is enough reason to believe that there should be a judicial investigation, but it is unlikely that Congress's actions would be considered unconstitutional, as the authorization was passed with the most accurate knowledge they had AT THAT TIME.
The question that follows would be whether the Executive Branch provided information regarding Iraq that was, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, FABRICATED or EXAGGERATED. If the information was, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, FABRICATED, then the president and the entire executive branch should be held accountable and legal action taken. If the information, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, was EXAGGERATED, then it is unlikely that any legal action will be taken against the Executive branch. The most likely scenario is that between Baath party non-compliance issues, UNSCOM reports, US and allied intelligence departments and the Executive branch, information was EXAGGERATED in an unintentional, ever-spiraling game of telephone, and by the time that information reached Congress, it bore little resemblance to the facts regarding Iraq. (See Kenneth Pollack’s article in the January/February, 2004 edition of The Atlantic for non-partisan in-depth discussion on this issue.)
Regardless of the outcome of Federal-level investigations about Iraq, neither a serviceperson nor a private citizen has the legal ability to declare a president and congress's decision to take military action IN AND OF ITSELF illegal. Even IF the President’s authorization to use force were declared illegal by congress because of intelligence oversights or fabrications when presenting his case to congress, refusal by a serviceperson to follow a DEPLOYMENT order because of personal objections to a particular military action would still be considered “refusal to obey a lawful order.” |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by elisabeth sherif
esherif (nospam) earthlink.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2004
|
What's happened with this gal, who is following the constitutional dictum of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - the antithesis of whch the U.S.A. has planned and is pursuing in the Middle East? Do you remember the Iran/Contra Affair? It was Israel's plan. Check out the website for: Project for the New American Century!
Bush speaks of endless war. Who really are the terrorists? Maybe Rogue States who launch pre-emptive action/ war and provoca-tion for half a century; they have the power and the big bombs, the sanctions and occu-pier's heel on the necks of Palestinians and Iraqis, and the financial/ political clout to oil wheel/deal with entrenched or scarred local puppets. Why can't "security" pertain to human rights of Americans and the world at large, not to the preferred interests of few? |
|
Re: Support The Resistance |
by chuck
chuck (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jul 2004
|
|
Perhaps we aren't as concerned about the world at large because when we became more trusting and let our guard down, terrorists killed 3000+ innocent civilians. Have we forgotten this already? I'm sure the Israelis would probably have similar thoughts about the Palestinians. |
|
Re: Resist The Resistance |
by Resistence needs war
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Jul 2004
|
The "resistene" believes in continyed and never ending war...no negotiation for peaceful settlements...the "resistence" is PRO-WAR!!!
Resist the RESISTENCE for PEACE!! |
|
