Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    From "Raising the Conscience Issue" in The Boston Globe, Monday, Feb.
    4, 1991
    
    by Sally Jacobs, Globe Staff
    
    
    East Islip, NY - Not so long ago, Rob ... had no doubt that truth
    flowed from the muzzle of a gun.
    
    And so, at 19, emboldened by his fighter's physique and believing in
    nothing so much as the right of American might, [he] enlisted in the
    Marine Corps Reserve.  For three years, he squeezed off a succession of
    roungs in Monthly training drills while much of his college tuition was
    paid for by the Pentagon.
    
    During that time, however, [he] says, he changed his mind about war,
    and three months ago he filed for a conscientious objector discharge.
    
    ...[His] father views his son's decision as an act of treason and tells
    him so daily.  His grandparents show their disapproval in subtler ways,
    but it's there.  It also is in the eyes of this fellow Marines.
    
    But [Rob] is unwavering.
    
    "My father tells me that he's ashamed of me, he screams at me that he's
    embarrassed by me... But I blieve that killing people is morally wrong. 
    I believe I'm serving my country more by being true to my conscience
    than by living a life."
    
    The roughly 1,250 reservists -- out of a total of almost 600,000 -- who
    military counselors estimate to have filed for ... CO discharges are
    easily outnumbered by those who support the war.
    
    ...
    
    But despite widespread support for the US military presence in the
    gult, some of the louder voices against the war are coming from within
    the military.  They are the voices of the men and women who say that in
    the time that has passed since they enlisted, they have come to believe
    war is wrong or, in a few cases, that they never believed it was right
    in the first place.
    
    [to be continued]

    Continued from "Raising the Conscience Issue" in The Boston Globe,
    Monday, Feb. 4, 1991
    
    by Sally Jacobs, Globe Staff
    
    Some who joined up while they were still in high school say they have
    wanted to leave the military for years, but only recently learned of
    the objector discharge, which releases from duty recruits who can prove
    that war, or the bearing of arms, is against their moral or spiritual
    beliefs.
    
    "I'd never even heard of a CO," said Colin Bondi of Westport, Conn., an
    infantry specailist in the Army Reserves who was granted a temporary
    restraining order recently blocking his activation.  He had his dog
    tags changed to read Buddhist in 1989 to reflect his believs.  "I
    thought the only alternative was jail, or I would have done this a long
    time ago."
    
    ...
    
    But many objectors, who say their applications have stalled since the
    fighting began, are afraid.  In objector circles it is noted that under
    the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in time of war the penalty for
    desertion -- an unauthorized absence of more than 30 days -- is death.
    
    For those who waited until recently to file for objector status it may
    be too late....
    
    "Many people are frightened, many are frantic and a large number of
    them are angry," said Katherine Franke, executive director of the
    National Lawyers Guild in New York, which has installed a hotline.
    "A lot of these people got tricked into this and now they're being
    asked to put their lives on the line.  Many of them will do almost
    anythng they can not to go over there."
    
    [to be continued]

    Continued from "Raising the Conscience Issue" in The Boston Globe,
    Monday, Feb. 4, 1991
    
    by Sally Jacobs, Globe Staff
    
    "Tricked" is a word that is often used by counselors and reservists'
    lawyers.  Although the military service is voluntary, they maintain
    that the reserves are a kind of "poverty draft," a last resort for
    those unable to pay for their education or find decent paying jobs.
    
    ...
    
    But counselors and activitst charge that recruiters can exploit
    potential recruits' neediness with high pressure tactics, and often
    present a distorted picture of the reserves.
    
    "These reservists were told they'd never go overseas, that they'd never
    fight a war," said Ronald Kugy, a New Yoprk lawyer representing about
    40 reservists seeking objector discharges.  "They were promised an
    education and a job but they were never told about the reality of what
    they were getting into.
    
    You couldn't sell a refrigerator to these kids in the way the reserves
    were sold to them in terms of the length of contract and the terms."
    
    A Pentagon spokesman denied the charge, describing such allegations as
    "inconceivable."
    
    The young recruits are finding that faced with the reality of war,
    "they do not believe violence is the answer," Kuby said.  "Under any
    other circumstances, if we had street kids say that they had come to
    believe the answer to problems is not hitting or shooting, we'd say,
    'Fantastic.  Wonderful.'  Indead we're saying, 'How dare you say you
    won't kill anybody?'"
    
    [to be continued]
    

    Continued from "Raising the Conscience Issue" in The Boston Globe,
    Monday, Feb. 4, 1991
    
    by Sally Jacobs, Globe Staff
    
    ...
    To Paul Doston of Blacksburg, Va. it is not a question of cowardice but
    of growing up.  At 17, Dotson, still in high school, faollowed his
    father's footsteps into the Marine Corps, believing "America was right
    all the time.  I couldn't understand why everyone didn't join."
    
    But boot camp and several years of college caused Dotson to question
    war in general and American foreign policy in particular.  By 1987,
    Dotson said he was "pretty antimilitary" and wanted out.  But thinking
    "you had to be a Quaker to be a CO," and unaware of other possible
    discharges, he did nothing.  A few weeks after the invasion of Kuwait,
    Dotson heard about some soldiers applying for objector status and
    promptly began to prepare his own application.
    
    "I was just growing up and I was learning a lot about the world that I
    hadn't known when I enlisted," said Dotson, now 23.  "I don't believe
    there's a cause worth killing for.  If I were over there now I'd be
    firing over the heads of Iraqi troops."
    
    For many reservists who signed up while still in their teens, changing
    attitudes about the world as well as the war are inevitable, some say.
    
    "People don't think everything through to their consequences and they
    do have a change of heart and it doesn't mean they're a coward," said
    Gordon Zahn, a World War II conscientious objector and national
    director of the Center on Conscience and War in Charlestown.
    ...
    
    [end]

    Many CO's have refused medical corps duty, as well.  Their rationale
    is this: In a combat situation, traditionally, those who are least
    injured are treated first.  Why?  So they can be sent back on to the
    battlefield, of course.  Sound inhumane?  Well, that's war for you.
    
    Some conscientiously opposed to war will refuse to do anything
    which they believe supports the waging of war.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    My oldest son is in the merchant marine, which is not part of the
    military.  Merchant ships haul "stuff" all over the world; and in
    time of war the government can activate them to ship supplies to
    the war zone.  In WWII, the merchant marine lost *proportionately* more
    ships than the Navy.  Naturally, countries at war target the supply
    lines, and that is exactly where the merchant marine ships are, even
    though they are surrounded by navy ships for protection.
    
    David is a third class engineer working for Mobil.  If his ship were
    sent to the Gulf, he would go, though he would not seek out such a
    position because of the danger, euphemistically called "harm's way."  
    He's trained to do his job, and if we are at war and he is needed, 
    I would support his decision to go with his ship.  
    
    Younger son Dan is a sophomore in college.  When I asked him what he
    would do if the draft were reinstated and he was called up, he said he
    would go to jail.  He wouldn't go to Canada (which is what I had
    guessed) because that would not make a clear statement of his feelings
    about the war.  He wouldn't file as CO because he would not want to
    perform *any* alternate service that would contribute to the war
    effort.
    
    I also support him in his decision, though I am urging him to find out
    more about CO status before he totally rules it out.
    
    Nancy

    "Registration of Members of The United Methodist Church who are
    Conscientious Objectors" is a resource that assists CO's by putting
    their position on record with an agency of the church.
    
    Each CO is encouraged to establish a record of his/her beliefs in order
    to substantiate his/her claim.  As a step in documenting a decision of
    conscience, a conscientious objector may complete the registration
    document and submit it to the registry which is maintained by the
    General Board of Church and Society.
    
    Free copies of this resource are availabe from the:
    	Peace with Justice Office
    	General Board of Church and Society
    	100 Maryland Avenue, NE
    	Washington, DC 20002

    Many local Friends meetings, including the one in Colorado Springs,
    also maintain a registry of COs.  You don't have to be a Quaker to
    register with a Friends meeting.
    
    -- Mike

    	I have long held that each citizen owes a service to their country.
    This is part of a contract between the nation and those who benefit
    from being a part of that nation. The nature of the service is
    negotiable. The Peace Corps would be, to me, an acceptable alternative
    to military service, as would nearly any under-paid position as a
    social or health worker among the poor. Marshall has quoted the Bible
    to support the need of the citizen to do for the country. Gotta go, my
    term is heating up.

Re: .9  Dave

For a contract to exist doesn't it have to be agreed to by both sides?

				-- Bob

    Bob,
    	formal, legally binding contracts require that both sides can be
    shown to have freely agreed to explicit terms. Everyone who lives in a
    society has an informal contract with that society and may have a
    formal contract as well. The informal contract is the one I was
    refering to - the one where each individual expects certain things of
    the society and is expected to do certain things in return. Some of
    these are set forth as laws or as other official documents such as the
    Bill of Rights. Others are "just expected". Most people "expect" that,
    in return for their payment of taxes, the government will protect them
    from harm and support them in time of need. (Defense and Welfare) Some
    people feel that society somehow "owes" them a decent living in
    exchange for their mere existance. When both society and member agree
    upon the terms of membership and mutual responsibility, and when both
    sides can support their obligation, that society thrives. When there is
    disagreement, or when one or the other fails their obligation, there is
    discord and the entire society suffers.
    
    	Dave

Re: .11 Dave

That's OK; I was just nit-picking on your use of the word "contract".
Actually, I think your suggestion that COs should do social work or in
other ways pay off their "debt" of service to the government is a good one.
In Sgt. Morse's case, for example, I think it makes more sense to have him
do some kind of communitty service for the length of time he would have
had to stay in the armed forces than to let him rot in jail.

        			-- Bob

    Re:  Contracts - 
    
    As Peter said, "We ought to obey God, rather than men."  To be sure, I
    benefit from this society, and for that I owe a debt that I pay for
    every day.  But one must be careful to remember priorities.
    
    DR

    Those people who, when they are asked to put the years of training in
    practice, suddenly decided that they don't want to "hurt" anyone should
    be treated with grave suspicion, in my opinion.

    Nobody, and I mean nobody, who has ever served in the military can ever
    understand anything except that those rifles and tanks and bombs and
    aircraft and missiles are there for the purpose of waging war if
    needed.  For those on active duty, these implements of war are around
    them every day.  They are firmly indoctrinated as to just what their
    mission is, even if they are just cooks, or clerk typists.  Their
    mission is to be ready to either directly engage in combat, or to
    support those who are directly engaged in combat.  In other words,
    their mission is to kill people, or help others kill people when given
    lawful orders by their superiors and they are made abundantly aware of
    that right from day one.  And last, but far from least, there isn't
    one single person who is serving in the US Armed forces today that
    isn't there because he or she wants to be there.

    After all, the soldier has voluntarily signed a contract with the
    government, sworn an oath to obey lawful orders of his superiors, and
    has willingly accepted the pay, training, and GI bill benefits that
    have been paid for by the American taxpayer.  Now, when they are asked
    to do their duty, at least some of these people are trying to renege on
    their part of the contract for reasons of convenience rather than
    morals.  Of course, implicit in this contract is a realization that
    some people do find "religion" or "moral scruples", or whatever, and
    the government does make provision for them to get out of serving.  I
    just can't help but be suspicious of all those who found religion after
    August 2.  Anyway, the burden of proof is on the objector, not the
    government.

    Finally, those people who decide to desert rather than accept the due
    process that is available to them, should be prosecuted to the fullest
    extent that the law allows, and receive appropriate punishment, which,
    at the very least, should be a discharge under less than honorable
    conditions.  That at least would relieve the taxpayer of rewarding
    these people via GI bill benefits for running out on their
    obligations to the taxpayers.

    How does all this relate to a Christian perspective?  I haven't the
    foggiest, but something about rendering unto Caesar does come to mind.

    Mike

    If someone has come to the conclusion that rendering unto Caesar in one
    instance would mean rendering *against* God, how should they resolve
    this conflict?  I would vote for rendering unto God.
    
    -- Mike

    Except, as taught by Christianity, there are such things as just and
    moral wars.  Surely fighting for justice is also a permissible
    Christian concept, as well.  This war is clearly a fight for justice 
    for the Kuwaiti people, and against an aggressor, in addition to
    protecting our own economy.
    
    As far as rendering unto God goes, are you saying that these people
    have been having conversations directly with the Almighty, Himself?  Or
    are they doing what so many people do, and make a self serving
    decision, and then indulge in the rankest sophistry by declaring that
    it is God's will, thus trying to stifle any dissent?   Of course
    neither one of us knows for sure, but maybe I've had just enough
    experience with people who profess a new found religion to believe that
    the latter case is true much more often than the former.  Especially in
    the case of people who are already serving in the military.
    
    Mike 

    I could not disagree with you more that this war is a "fight for
    justice", but that isn't the point.  I think it is important to note
    that Quakers traditionally have not believed that "there are such
    things as just and moral wars".  So to say that Christianity believes
    in "just war" is not to paint a complete picture of the Christian
    faith.  Some Christians do adhere to this doctrine, but others do not.

    As one who believes that war is morally wrong, and therefore against
    God's will, I believe that rendering unto Caesar in the case of
    fighting a war is, for me, no less than rendering against God.  And I
    have had enough experience with conscientious objectors to believe that
    there are many people, including those in the military, who have
    honestly come to the conclusion that war is morally wrong.
    
    -- Mike

    	There are several Christian sects that feel that killing, given any
    circumstance, is wrong and unacceptable. Members of these sects could
    not join the military, except in certain support functions like
    chaplin, in good faith.
    	I believe there might be such a thing as a moral war and would be
    willing to kill an enemy in a defensive action. The last military
    action that comes to mind as being possibly moral was WW II, from the
    allied side. There may be others, but not likely ones that the US
    participated in. Given that the US has been at war more often than not
    since the end of WW II, that is a sad record.
    	Mike-who-believes-this-is-a-fight-for-justice,
    are you aware of our Administration's complicity in getting this war
    started ?  Are you aware of the lack-of-good-faith posturing that
    replaced diplomacy prior to the initiation of hostilities ?  You can't
    tell the players in this without a program and sound-bites do not an
    informed observer make.

    re: .18
    
    Well, I don't propose to debate here whether or not this war is just or
    not, except to ask if Dave-who-believes-that-this-is-not-a-fight-for-
    -justice, believes that good faith diplomacy ever works when dealing
    with a sociopath who is bent on destruction?  You call it posturing, I
    call it telling a bully to get out, in no uncertain terms.
    
    I agree with you that one who listens to sound bites only is not an
    informed observer.  Of course, those sound bites do come from people on
    both sides of the issue, and are used in place of thought on the peace
    side every bit as much as they are used by people who support Desert
    Storm.  Informed observers are not found just on the peace side, you
    know.
    
    Regarding Christianity and wars:  Of course there are Christian sects
    that are opposed to war of any sort, but they aren't exactly in the
    mainstream of Christian thought.  The history of Christianity is quite
    replete with wars of one sort or another, with churches and/or church
    leaders supporting war, and sometimes actively participating in war,
    right up to and including this latest war.  
    
    Now, I'm not saying this to slam Christianity, especially since the
    various Christian movements are essentially man-made/man-run
    operations, and are subject to the same vices that plague all men and
    women.  All I am saying is that Christianity, and especially
    Christians, do not have a lock on morality as evidenced by their own
    history.
    
    Mike
                                              

    Could we please move the discussion on the justness or lack thereof
    of the war to that other string (wherever it is) and save this for
    CO stuff?
    
    Thanks!

    Nancy,
    	OK. I just want to close ONE issue here.
    
    Mike,
    	I was replying to two Mikes in one message. Had to distinguish
    between the two. That was the reason for the extended identifier.
    
    	Dave

    re .21
    
    Hokay!  Now I understand, Dave.  
    
    Mike

Because of concerns raised by the Persian Gulf war, Mennonite Central
Committee (MCC) has produced an information packet on the draft and
conscientious objection.
 
The "CO Packet," compiled by MCC U.S. Peace Section, includes a
"Christian Peacemaker Registration Form" and information on Selective
Service, the draft, conscientious objection, alternative service and a
resource list.
 
MCC has other printed and audio-visual peace materials for study of peace
and war issues and the Middle East.  All materials are available from
MCC, Box 500, Akron PA 17501-0500, telephone (717) 859-1151.
 
Printed material:
 
- "Christian Peacemaker Registration Forms" to file personal beliefs
  about war.
 
- "Draft Counselor's Update," quarterly newsletter, contains current
  information on draft legislation.
 
- "Christian Perspectives on War Tax Opposition" contains information
  on war tax payments and alternatives.
 
- "Persian Gulf Crisis" updated study packet will be available March 1.
 
- "War Begins in the Minds of People, and It Is There That They Should
  Be Resisted" poster.
 
- "Militarism and Hunger Packet" examines the relationship between
  militarism and world hunger.
 
 
Audiovisuals:
 
- "Anybody's Son Will Do," one-hour video cassette or 16mm film,
  observes basic training where recruits are turned into Marines.
 
- "Choice or Chance," 20-minute slide set about registration for
  the draft.  Also available in Spanish.
 
- "Taxes for Peace," 30-minute slide set about war tax resistance and
  describes the Peace Tax Fund Bill.
 
- "Making War in Peace," 23-minute slide set or video cassette, tells
  the story of people of northern Laos following the Vietnam War.
 
- "an Essay on War," 23-minute 16mm film, narrated by Andy Rooney,
  discusses the nature of war.
 
- "Journey to Pacifism," 22-minute video cassette.  Siegfried Bartel
  tells how he became a pacifist after serving as an officer in
  Hitler's army in World War II.
 
- "Islam:  An Introduction," 23-minute video cassette, gives a brief
  introduction to Islam's history and tradition.
 
- "Courage Along the Divide," 90-minute three-part video cassette,
  looks at the Israeli-Palestinian problem in the Middle East.
 
- "I Can Make Peace" cassettes, stories and songs about peacemaking
  for children.
 
- "Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land," two-hour video
  cassette, looks at the tension between Arabs and Jews in Israel and
  the West Bank.
 
- "Oil, Arms and the Gulf," 30=minute video cassette examines the
  implications of U.S. and European military involvement in the
  Persian Gulf.
 
- "A Line in the Sand," 55-minute video cassette, narrated by Peter
  Jennings, gives background information on the Persian Gulf crisis.
 
 
[From MCC News Service.]

    I would like to pass along the following information that I received
    concerning Marine Reservists who are COs:
    
    
          Fourteen Marine Reservists who have filed CO applications are
currently being held at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.  Seven of them had
CO hearings on January 22-23, and the rest are scheduled for this month.
They are all facing court martials on charges of desertion and missing movement
.  The cour martials are scheduled for Feb. 25-28 at Camp Lejeune.  They face
up to seven years in prison for acting on their beliefs, regardless of the
outcome of their conscientious objection hearings.
       The organization HANDS OFF! is handling their defense and coordinating
support efforts.  They suggest the following:
       1. Write letters of support to the reservists.  Their names are
James E. Summers, Jr.; Demetrio R. Perez, Sam Lwin (that's "Lwin");
Marcus Blackwell; Douglas J. DeBoer; Couglas W. Schiell; Enrique Gonzalez;
John Isaac; Colin Bootman; Wayne Anthony McWhite; Marquis Leacock; Harvey
Hensley; David Bobbitt; Keith Jones.  They can all be sent mail at the
following address:
 
             LCPL Leacock
             Bldg H-1 Wing A
             2nd MEB
             MCB Camp Lejeune, NC 28540-5090
 
         2. Write a letter to their Commanding Officer demanding justice
 
             Commander General (Major General Cooper)
             4th Marine Division (REIN) FMF
             4400 Dauphine Street
             New Orleans, LA 70146-5400
 
         3. Help HANDS OFF! pay the airfare for the lawyers who have donated
their services to defend these reservists.  Checks should be made payable to
Hands Off!/IFCO.  The address is
 
              HANDS OFF!
              111 East 14th Street, Room 132
              New York, New York 10003
                  phone: (212)353-2445 or (212)475-6647
 
  These guys are under tremendous pressure and really need to hear from peace
activists - many of them are college students, so this might be a good project
for campus activists to take on.  I'll send the statement that the CO's
wrote describing their ordeal by separate transmission.
 
                                                   -Louise Antony
                                                    NCSU

/** military.draft: 43.0 **/
** Topic: Support SGT JOHN PRUNER **
** Written  1:31 pm  Mar  4, 1991 by mideastdesk in cdp:military.draft **
Army Sgt. John Pruner is a conscientious objector stationed at
Fort Riley, Kansas. He is currently facing a courts-martial for
the charges of AWOL, desertion with intent to avoid hazardous
duty, and missing movement. He went AWOL as a last resort after
the Army refused to properly handle his request for a discharge as
a conscientious objector. After about a month AWOL, he turned
himself in to military authorities at Fort Dix, NJ where he
should, according to regulations, have been held and most likely
given an administrative discharge. Instead, authorities at Fort
Riley lied and told the authorities at Fort Dix that John Pruner
"escaped," and as a result, John was taken back to Fort Riley in
handcuffs and shackles to face a court-martial.
 
John's court-martial is currently scheduled for April 3. Article
32 hearing was waived due to a plea agreement. According to his
attorney, Chris Hodge, Cpt Tibbets, John's commanding officer
perferred court martial charges on January 25. On February 5,
however she filed a recommendation he be discharged as a
conscientious objector. Also, the federal requirements which
determine the process by which conscientious objector applicants
will be dealt with, have been altered. In the past, when a soldier
applied for CO status, he or she was restricted to base and not
deployed (sent) to a war zone. During this conflict, the
Department of Defense has instructed the services to ship to the
war zone, any CO applicant they care to, meaning that the
applicants status will be determined while in a combat zone. This
process did not occur during WWII or Vietnam. Also, in John's
case, the government claiming secrecy, has refused to supply the
defense team copies of the alert order dated November 8, 1990,
that changed the process.
 
The Committee to Defend Sgt. John Pruner has called for massive
national demonstrations to be held at military bases in support of
John Pruner and other G.I. resisters. Attention should also be
called to Fort Riley's gross mishandling of conscientious
objectors and military resisters. Another resister, George Morse,
is currently serving a five month jail sentence at Fort Riley
because of his refusal to obey orders to load a cargo plane bound
for the Persian Gulf. Amnesty International has recently declared
Morse to be the first political prisoner in the U.S. since 1987.
Massive demonstrations should be mobilized demanding that George
Morse be released from prison NOW, and that John Pruner's
court-martial be dropped and he be granted an honorable discharge
as a conscientious objector.
 
John Pruner needs help with legal expenses and support as well.
Please send all donations to:
 
Committee to Defend Sgt. John K. Pruner c/o Military & Veterans
Advocates P.O. Box 158 Knob Noster, MO 65336 (816) 563-5436
 
Please write letters of support to the above address. To help, or
to coordinate demonstrations in the Fort Riley area, please call
the above phone number.
 
Also, please write to the commander of Fort Riley, Kansas, in
support of John Pruner, demanding that his court-martial be
dropped and that he be granted an honorable discharge as a
conscientious objector. A coupon is provided below. Please clip
and mail to:  Commander, 1st Infantry Division and Fort Riley,
Fort Riley, KS 66442.
 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 
TO: Commander, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, KS 66442:
 
I would like to express my full support for Sgt. John Pruner. I
understand his request for a discharge as a conscientious objector
was not properly handled, and in addition, authorities at Fort
Riley lied and said that he "escaped" in order to illegally have
him sent back from Ft. Dix, NJ. I demand that his court-martial be
dropped and that he be granted an immediate honorable discharge as
a conscientious objector. In addition, I also demand the immediate
release of George Morse from prison. (signed)     (address)
** End of text from cdp:military.draft **

/** military.draft: 47.0 **/
** Topic: Millay Poem for Objectors **
** Written 11:06 pm  Mar  4, 1991 by wrlmilitary in cdp:military.draft **
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
 
I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death.
 
I hear him leading his horse out of the stall; I hear the clatter
on the barn floor.
 
He is in haste; he has business in Cuba, business in the Balkans,
many calls to make in the morning.
 
But I will not hold the bridle while he cinches the girth.
 
And he may mount by himself: I will not give him a leg up.
 
Though he flick my shoulders with his whip, I will not tell him
which way the fox ran.
 
With his hoof on my breast, I will not tell him where the black
boy hides in the swamp.
 
I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death;
 
I am not on his payroll.
 
I will not tell him the whereabouts of my friends nor of my
enemies either.
 
Though he promise me much, I will not map him the route to any
man's door.
 
Am I a spy in the land of the living, that I should deliver men
to Death?
 
Brother, the passwords and the plans of our city are safe with
me; never through me shall you be overcome.
 
Edna St. Vincent Millay
____________________________________________________
Reprinted from Sonoma County Peace Press, March 1991
540 Pacific Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95405
707-575-8902
** End of text from cdp:military.draft **

/** mideast.actions: 95.0 **/
** Topic: CAMP LEJEUNE COURT MARTIALS **
** Written 11:06 am  Mar 15, 1991 by handsoff in cdp:mideast.actions **
March 13, 1991
AN URGENT MESSAGE FROM HANDS OFF
 
A Call to Support the Camp Lejeune Military Resisters:
 
"How can we, the human race, survive, if we continue to act on these
primitive, bestial instincts? Why are so-called responsible people in
the government and media promoting this barbaric thinking? Today my
brothers and myself from the fox Company and from various branches of
the armed forces are declaring our right to stand up for what we
believe in, a right and an ideal upon which this country was founded."
 
                        Sam Lwin, (former) Lance Corporal
                        U.S. Marine Corps
 
Dear Friends,
 
These words of Sam Lwin speak loudly to the need for a different kind
of "world order" than the one George Bush has been promoting. Although
the president found it in his heart to stop dropping bombs on Iraqi
civilians and retreating soldiers, the war against Conscientious
Objectors continues.
 
Hands Off! is a military counseling, peace and social justice
organization. We are sending this message through PEACENET to
inform/update you about the Marine Conscientious Objectors currently
being held at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.
 
The "Few and the Proud" are none too pleased that they still have 17
Marines who insist that the war never should have happened and that
the slaughter was immoral and unnecessary.  All in their twenties,
these Marines are African, White, Latino and Asian Americans who
refused to be a part of the Gulf War.
 
Each of these young men had developed beliefs against killing long
before the Gulf Crisis, but they had never heard of Conscientious
Objector status or had misconceptions about who was eligible for it.
Upon receiving activation orders last fall and winter, and faced with
the actuality of being ordered to kill someone, they all quickly
sought counselling about their dilemmas. Because preparation of their
conscientious objector applications took several weeks, they were late
in reporting for duty.
 
As a result, they all face court martial and up to seven years in
prison on charges of Desertion and Missing Movement. Eric Hayes, who
was court-martialled before the war began, was sentenced to two and a
half years in the brig.
 
Now that Operation Desert Storm is over, the Marine Corps is
determined to push for the maximium punishment. Conscientious
Objectors are being given harsher charges and longer sentences than
Marines who committed similar offenses who are not COs. During a visit
to Camp Lejeune, we discovered that Marines convicted of manslaughter
and armed robbery have been given lighter sentences than resisters,
whose only "crime" was refusing to kill.  Isolated in separate
"Conscientious Objector Barracks," the resisters have been subjected
to endless harassment. Even before their court martials, two of them
-- Danny Gillis and Jimmy Summers -- have been held in solitary
confinement cells measuring six by eight feet. Sleep deprivation is a
favorite Marine Corps tactic against COs: all of them have been
ordered to daily extra duty which means that they can sleep no longer
than three hours in a row. One of the sergeants enjoys making them
line up and ordering them to chant "I am shit" over and over. In the
brig, civil rights are severely curtailed: they are not allowed to
read literature of a political nature; diaries and artwork are
monitored;  outgoing and incoming mail is censored.
 
We must mobilize support to stop the harassment, force the Marine
Corps to drop the charges or, at least, give them lighter sentences.
 
We at Hands Off! and the rest of the military resistance support
network urge you to support the resisters. We cannot abandon these
young people who put themselves on the line by refusing to participate
in this war. See our "Act Now" list for suggestions and let us know if
you have any other ideas. The Court Martials will begin in April so we
must act quickly.
 
The resisters' lawyers include Steven Somerstein (Vietnam Veterans
Against the War), Ron Kuby (from the Law Firm of William Kunstler),
Hillary Richard (Rabinowitz Boudin), Gerri Picket (Black Vets for
Social Justice) and Rayna Baum. While our lawyers work on these cases
for free, we have to pay for their travel expenses and support work.
Each time they go to Camp Lejeune it costs us a minimum of $750 for
each lawyer. The defense team has already made three trips to North
Carolina and the court martials haven't even begun. See below for how
you can help with this.

ACT NOW TO SUPPORT THE CAMP LEJEUNE RESISTERS
 
"Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture revolutionary
spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal
hostility to poverty, racism and militarism."
 
                                Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
1. Let the guys at Lejeune know you support them.  Send them letters
and things to read. You can try sending it to their address (they all
have the same address):
 
                        Building H-1 Wing A 2nd Meb MCB, Camp Lejeune,
                        North Carolina
                        28540-5090
 
However, their mail is being censored, despite repeated protests. So
if you want to make sure they get your letters or other written
material, send it to Hands Off! We send somebody down to Lejeune
almost every week and can hand it to them.
 
2. Pressure the military directly. There are various ways to do this.
 
* Write to the Commanding General of the Fourth Marine Division. He's
the man with the power over what happens to the resisters.
 
                Commander General Major General Cooper 4th Marine
                Division (Rein) FMF 400 Dauphine Street New Orleans,
                LA 70146-5400
 
* If you live near a Marine base or Marine Reserve Center, organize a
demonstration or something creative in support of the Camp Lejeune
Conscientious Objectors. Get it publicized.
 
3. At the end of this PEACENET message is a "Statement in Support of
the Camp Lejeune Conscientious Objectors." It's one of those things
where you get institutions and famous or "reputable" people to sign.
Go for it. We need churches, unions, all types of organizations, as
well as "big names," "medium names," and not-so-famous but respectable
types (academics, artists, etc.). Send us the names.
 
4. Contact other peace and anti-war groups in your area. Share this
material with them. Expand the support network. Even better, if you
are an organization, copy the materials in this message and send it
out to your own mailing list.
 
5. Send letters and articles to local media.
 
6. Send money for legal expenses and if you can't afford it, organize
a fundraiser to raise money and awareness. Funds are needed right
away. Please give what you can. Through the Interreligious Foundation
for Community Organization (IFCO is our fiscal agent) all checks are
tax-deductible and should be made out to Hands Off!/IFCO.
 
7. Join the National Mobilization around April 6th to Commemorate
Martin Luther King's Assassination.

Following is a list of the guys at Lejeune:
 
   THE CAMP LEJEUNE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
 
Marcus Blackwell, 25, before activation lived in Brooklyn, worked in
Manhattan, and studied at the Borough of Manhattan Community College.
He attends the Berean Missionary Baptist Church and is engaged.
 
David Bobbitt, 26, was raised a Catholic in Staten Island, New York,
where he repairs elevators to support his art. Dave's artwork will be
exhibited at the New School for Social Research in New York in April.
 
Colin Bootman, 25, is an artist and a graduate of the School of Visual
Arts in N.Y. where he had begun a small greeting cards company to
counter racist stereotypes and expose social injustice.
 
Greg Dawson, 25, was a senior at the University of Louisville majoring
in mathematics. He was sentenced to nine months and a Dishonorable
Discharge for Desertion and Missing Movement.
 
Doug DeBoer, 22, had a strong Baptist upbringing in Florida. His
rejection of the military began in bootcamp when he was forced to sing
racist, sexist and graphically violent cadences.
 
Daniel Gillis is from Baltimore. Since becoming a Muslim, Danny has
become a vegetarian and stopped drinking alcohol. He makes Salah
(prayer) five times a day and regularly attends Jumah (congregational
prayer) and Teleem (community meetings).
 
Enrique Gonzalez, 24, before activation was a student at Nova
University School of Law in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A practising
Catholic, Enrique's family fled the war in El Salvador in 1979.
 
Eric Hayes, 21, was president of the Black Students' Association at
Southern Illinois University in Edwardsville. He was sentenced to two
and a half years and a Dishonorable Discharge for Desertion and
Missing Movement.
 
Harvey Hensley, 21, originally from Texas, attended the University of
Oklahoma and worked as a roofer and house painter. He is a member of
St.  Clements Catholic Church and a volunteer with the Red Cross.
 
John Isaac III, 23, and his wife, Nancy, have a four-month-old
daughter. They attend the Canaanland Christian Church where he sings
in the choir. Before activation John was pre-med at City College of
New York. He plans to attend Columbia University upon his release.
 
Keith Jones, 25, before activation was studying theater at City
College of New York. He is a member of the Buddhist Nichren Daishonin
faith.  Keith has taken part in demonstrations against school budget
cuts and against the war in the Gulf.
 
Marquis Leacock, 22, before activation was taking word processing and
data entry courses at IBM in White Plains, New York. He attends weekly
bible study meetings with evangelist Dick Runge.
 
Sam (Maung Maung) Lwin, 21, was born in Burma and joined the US Marine
Corps as a way to pay the US back. Through his bootcamp experiences he
quickly came to realize the military was not what he expected. Sam is
a student at the New School for Social Research in Manhattan.
 
Wayne McWhite, 22, attends the All Saints' Catholic Church in
Manhattan. He works as a supermarket clerk and is a member of the War
Resisters League.
 
Demetrio Perez, 21, was a student at Florida's Santa Fe Community
College. Demetrio tried to join an Amish Mennonite Church, but was
turned down because of his enlistment in the Marines. He is active
with Veterans for Peace.
 
James Summers, 21, studied education at SantaFe Community College in
Florida. Jimmy's views about the miltary began to change in bootcamp,
where he witnessed the racist and violent nature of their treatment.
 
George Ward, 21, from Illinois, is a vegetarian and is active in the
animal rights movement. A Catholic, George's application stresses that
church teaching upholds the right to conscientious objection.
 
                    END OF LIST
 
Following is the statement to get famous and `reputable' types to
sign.
 
 FREE THE CAMP LEJEUNE PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE
 
The President finally found it in his heart to stop dropping bombs on
Iraqi civilians and retreating soldiers, and for this we are relieved.
But the war against Conscientious Objectors in the military continues.
 
Seventeen Marines who insist that the war should never have happened
await court martial. All in their twenties, these Marines are African,
White, Latino, and Asian Americans who refused to be a part of the
Gulf techno-carnage.
 
Each of these young men had develped beliefs against killing before
the Gulf Crisis, but they had never heard of Conscientious Objector
status or had misconceptions about who was eligible.
 
Faced with the palpable prospect of killing, they all sought
counselling. Once they understood what CO status was, their moral duty
was clear.  Preparation of the CO applications took several weeks, and
therefore they reported late for duty.  As a result, they all face
court-martial and up to seven years in prison on charges of Desertion
and Missing Movement (even though they only reported a few weeks late
- and voluntarily).
 
Now that Desert Storm is over, the Marine Corps seems determined to
push for retributive punishment. COs are being given harsher charges
and longer sentences than Marines who committed similar offenses but
who are not COs. Eric Hayes, who was court-martialed before the war
began, was sentenced to two and a half years in the brig.  This is
more than twice as long as sentences handed to Marines convicted of
manslaughter and of armed robbery. Does the Marine Corps consider
refusal to kill a crime greater than killing itself? Apparently, yes.
 
Isolated in Conscientious Objector Barracks, the resisters have been
subjected to endless harassment. Two have been held in solitary
confinement cells measuring six by eight feet.  Sleep deprivation is a
favored Marine Corps tactic against Conscientious Objectors: all of
them have been ordered to daily extra duty which means that they can
sleep no longer than three hours in a row. One sergeant enjoys making
them line up and chant "I am shit" over and over." In the brig, civil
rights are severely curtailed:  they are not allowed to read
literature of a political (broadly defined) nature; diaries and
artwork are monitored; outgoing and incoming mail is censored.
 
If this were to happen in a country branded by the US government as an
enemy, it would be denounced as an extreme violation of fundamental
human rights.
 
This persecution must stop. Were it to happen in certain other
countries, the US government would cry loud against violation of human
rights. The confinement must end. These prisoners of conscience have
committed no crime injurious to others; their incarceration
contradicts everything we believe the United States of America and its
Constitution was supposed to represent.
 
We demand that all charges be dropped and that these COs be set free.
We insist on peace with justice, in these cases -- as a beginning.
 
                END OF STATEMENT

A final few lines from Hands Off!:
 
* These guys are desperately hoping that the anti- war movement hasn't
closed up shop. They hope to be part of a movement when they finally
get out.  And, they hope we all can help get them out faster so they
can get down to organizing.
 
* Any articles or information about other military resistance around
the globe would be appreciated.  The resisters at Lejeune love to hear
about other GI resisters.
 
* We want to organize a nationwide action in support of these guys. We
are aiming for a date in mid-April for coordinated actions in cities
around the country and, of course, Germany. We'll let you know about
the date. Please contact us with any ideas you may have.
 
For more information on the Lejeune Resisters and what you can do to
help, please respond to this message: via Peacenet, write, call or fax
us:
 
                        HANDS OFF!
                        111 East 14th Street
                        Room 132
                        New York, N.Y. 10003
                        phone: 212-353-2445
               fax 212-598-9103
 
*************************************************
If you are in the military and want to get out, or if you know someone
in such a situation, call us:
 
                        (212) 353-2445
 
Other organizations you can contact:
 
War Resisters League            (212) 228-0450
Black Vets for Social Justice   (718) 935-1116
 
**************************************************
 
** End of text from cdp:mideast.actions **

Article         1425
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (PAMELA A. MacLEAN)
Newsgroups: clari.news.law.civil,clari.news.military,clari.news.religion
Subject: Judge orders Marines to reconsider conscientious objector
Date: 2 May 91 21:37:03 GMT
 
 
	SAN FRANCISCO (UPI) -- A federal judge Thursday ordered the U.S.
Marine Corps to reconsider conscientious objector status for reservist
Erik Larsen, who was charged with desertion for failing to fight during
the Persion Gulf war.
	The decision, however, fell short of the request by Larsen's attorney
Robert Rivkin that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker declare Larsen a
conscientious objector.
	The Marine Corps denied Larsen's conscientious objector application
in November with a finding that his request was based on political and
not religious grounds.
	Walker simply ruled that the Marine commandant failed to fully
explain the reasons for the denial of Larsen's request and ordered a new
hearing.
	Larsen, 23, Hayward, Calif., faces a potential death sentence if he
is convicted of a separate Marine Corps charge of desertion in a time of
war for his failure to report for duty when his reserve unit was
activated.
	Larsen, assigned as a missile radar mechanic, asserted during an
anti-war rally in August outside Chevron's headquarters in San Francisco
that he would refuse to fight for ``big oil'' and refuse orders sending
him to Saudi Arabia.
	The judge ordered Marine Corps to provide a new hearing for Larsen in
60 days and a decision in 120 days.
	Walker suggested that the Marine hearing officer ask Larsen to
explain his volunteering to serve extra duty at Dugway Proving Ground in
Utah in July 1990, just one month before he sought conscientious
objector status.
	Walker rejected Larsen's request to be returned to the San Francisco
Bay Area from Camp LeJeune, N.C., where he is currently being held.
	Larsen, who joined the Marines in 1986 at the age of 19, was attached
to the 4th Light Anti-Aircraft Missile Battalion in Hayward.
	The unit was sent to Yuma, Ariz., but never transferred to the
Persian Gulf.
	Johanne Larsen, the Marine's mother, was optimistic at the news of
Walker's order.
	``I think that's wonderful. It means he's going to be free. The
waiting, that's going to be the hardest,'' she said.
	Rivkin, Larsen's attorney, was less enthusiastic.
	``One thing is very clear,'' he said, ``the judge had little choice.
The Marine Corps clearly violated his due process rights.''
	Although Rivkin was disappointed that Walker did not overturn the
Marine Corps' decision outright and order conscientious objector status
for Larsen, he was pleased with even the partial relief the judge
ordered.
	``This is the first case in the country, during the Persian Gulf war,
where a federal court has granted even limited relief to a conscientious
objector,'' Rivkin said.
	He said it was unclear whether the Marine Corps would proceed
separately with the desertion charge against Larsen or would have to
wait until the moral objection to war question is resolved.
	Larsen asked to be discharged in September based on religious
objections to war. The request was denied in November.
	On Feb. 16, Larsen's reserve unit in Hayward was ordered to active
duty in Arizona. Larsen fled his unit on March 20.
	He surrendered to authorities on Treasure Island and was transferred
to Camp LeJeune on suspicion of being absent without leave.

Re: .31

>	Larsen, 23, Hayward, Calif., faces a potential death sentence if he
>is convicted of a separate Marine Corps charge of desertion in a time of
>war for his failure to report for duty when his reserve unit was
>activated.

Gee, Mike, thanks for making this Monday morning even more depressing.  At
least this news story gives me one more reason for being opposed to capital
punishment.

				-- Bob

    
                 Ya'll may have to help me here.  If someone "signs on the
    dotted line" isn't it a bit late to be against going to war?
    
    
    Dave

    Dave,
    
    There are, as I understand it, ways to leave the service if
    you change your mind or find you are unsuitable. Am I wrong?
    
    Bonnie

    Many individuals who sign up for the military later become morally and
    spiritually opposed to war.  It is my understanding that the military
    has recognized this as a matter of policy and has granted CO status to
    people who had volunteered earlier.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .34  Bonnie,
     
                       There are some services that tried that but I don't
    know if still in force or which of them have that.
    
    
    RE:  .35  Mike,
    
                      Well, leave it up to you Mike to come up with an
    answer I hadn't thought of.  Ya know....I hate looking dumb.  But that
    sounds reasonable.
    
    
    Dave

    
      Maybe I missed it, but when did Congress issue a formal declaration
    of war ? As it was explained to me in boot camp, this was necessary
    in order to invoke the death penalty in time of war clause of the
    UCMJ.
      Congress did vote to allow the President to use military force, 
    but this is not the same as declaring a state of war.
    
    
                                                               Mike

    Re: .37
    
    	Interesting question, Mike.  I think congress okaying the
    use of military force in the Gulf was a tacit declaration of war.
    I'm unclear on this.
    
    	Too bad we couldn't apply the same concentrated effort and the
    same spirit of rescue towards the recent crisis in Bangladesh.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (DAVID E. ANDERSON, UPI Religion Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.demonstration,clari.news.gov.usa,clari.news.issues.conflict,clari.news.hot.iraq
Subject: Religious leaders call for Gulf war amnesty
Date: 9 May 91 23:04:38 GMT
Lines: 56

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- A group of 18 national Protestant religious
leaders, including the head of President Bush's denomination, Thursday
called on the government to enact a legal amnesty for all military
personnel who refused to serve in the Persian Gulf War.
	The statement called on the heads of the branches of the U.S.
military to end all punishment, trials and imprisonments of resisters.
	``We believe our nation and its leadership are capable of such
healing acts,'' the statement said in a message sent to Bush, members of
Congress and the Joint Chiefs of Staffs.
	``We are convinced that we can all grow as a people in our respect
and understanding for those whose conscience says no to killing and to
war, but yes to life and non-violence,'' the statement said.
	In the period leading up to and through the Gulf War, more than 1,500
military service personnel filed for conscientious objector status,
according to groups who monitor resistance to the military, and the
armed forces have been proceeding with court martials of the objectors.
	A major trial of 25 Marines who refused duty in the gulf is expected
to begin next week at Camp Lejune, N.C.
	The question of amnesty for draft resisters, conscientious objectors
and military resisters was one of the most bitterly debated issues in
the aftermath of the Vietnam War.
	President Gerald Ford initiated a clemency program for draft
resisters but just 22,000 objectors participated in the program, which
required two years of public service work. At the end of his term, he
issued an order allowing some 700 service personnel objectors to upgrade
their less-than-honorable discharges.
	Shortly after taking office in 1977, President Jimmy Carter issued a
blanket amnesty for the more than 106,000 remaining draft resistance
cases but did nothing for military resisters and deserters.
	Last month, a group of 33 Roman Catholic bishops issued an appeal for
an amnesty for military objectors to the war against Iraq.
	In their call for amnesty, the Protestant religious leaders said they
spoke to the government ``as members of religious traditions that teach
respect for those who take a stand of conscientious objection to
participation in war.''
	``We believe that the right and responsibility of each person to
follow the dictates of conscience extend to members of the armed forces,
'' it said.
	``We note with sorrow and great concern that many in the armed forces
who claimed conscientious objector status or otherwise conscientiously
refused to participate in the war in the Persian Gulf, now suffer
imprisonment and/or face trial for acting on their deepest convictions,''
the statement said.
	The church leaders accused the military of creating ``unnecessary
difficulties'' for those in the military who ``examined their
consciences and then attempted to legally apply for conscientious
objector status and discharge from the service.''
	Among those signing the call were Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning,
head of Bush's Episcopal Church; the Rev. Joan Campbell, general
secretary of the National Council of Churches; the Rev. Joseph Lowery,
president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; the Rev. H.
Michael Lemmons, executive director of the Congress of National Black
Churches; Patricia Rumer, head of Church Women United and Dulany
Bennett, chairman of the American Friends Service Committee.
 adv 630 pm edt

Article: 636
From: jon%kracken.uci.com@UMCVMB.missouri.edu (Jon Harder)
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,alt.activism
Subject: Gulf War Resisters: Germany.
Date: 8 Sep 91 03:08:46 GMT
Sender: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Organization: PACH
 
 
   Out of reach of the strong conscientious objector support groups in the
   United States, the U.S. Army in Germany is putting its Gulf War resisters
   behind bars, one by one.
 
   The Military Counseling Network (MCN), a civilian non-profit agency, has
   been supporting the nearly 45 COs who need legal help in Germany, six of
   whom have been imprisoned so far with sentences ranging from four to 27
   months.
 
   The Gulf crisis prompted an increase in CO applications from among the
   250,000 soldiers stationed in Germany.  Interest in CO status increased
   from eight cases in the previous four years to 70 claims and more than
   1,000 inquiries since the beginning of Operation Desert Shield in August.
   All were filed with MCN.
 
   From the beginning, the U.S. Army in Europe has been brutal in its
   treatment of COs.  One victim of military policy is Sgt. Derrick Jones.
 
   After deciding he could not kill, Jones applied for a CO discharge.  On
   Christmas night, when his unit was ordered to report for deployment to the
   Gulf, Jones went AWOL.  While in hiding, he got a lawyer and called his
   captain.
 
   Before his unit was to ship out, the Army promised Jones that if he
   returned to his unit he would face discipline for leaving his unit, but
   "No problem.... You will not fly."
 
   When Jones arrived six hours later, military police handcuffed him and
   flew him to Saudi Arabia.  Jones went into shock.
 
   His wife, Karen, had no idea her husband had left the country.  From Saudi
   Arabia, Jones contacted her to say he was being ordered to carry a weapon
   despite his CO application.  He was fined and assigned extra duty as
   punishment for leaving his unit.
 
   At least 25 soldiers stationed in Germany subsequently went AWOL to escape
   the injustice of being forced to deploy to the Gulf despite their being
   conscientiously opposed to war.
 
   Some COs returned to military control without civilian representation and
   were taken in handcuffs to jail.  They are now serving prison terms for
   desertion, missing movement, refusing orders or AWOL, which together carry
   a maximum sentence of 12 years.
 
   In response, MCN began a legal project, offering civilian legal counsel to
   soldiers who would otherwise have to rely on the military's Trial Defense
   Service for representation.
 
   Clare Overlander, an attorney from New York who has put her practice on
   hold to coordinate MCN's Legal Project, has fought for fair treatment of
   these resisters as she accompanies them on their return to military
   control and represents them in military court.
 
   Despite such civilian support, the U.S. Army in Germany delivers harsh
   sentences.  An Army personnel memorandum of May 24, which reiterates
   previous policy,states that soldiers AWOL more than 90 days and dropped
   from from the rolls should be sent to the nearest Personnel Control
   Facility for out-processing.
 
   For GIs stationed in Germany, that means Fort Dix, NJ.  Fort Dix then
   calls the former unit, which may want to take disciplinary measures
   against the soldier, in which case he or she must go back.
 
   About 30 soldiers have been out-processed through Dix with other-than-
   honorable discharges, Overlander said.  But as units return to Germany
   from the Gulf, they are calling their soldiers back to Germany to
   personally try and sentence them.
 
   "Given the present climate, we are talking about the most unpopular
   defendants in the country at this time," Overlander said.
 
   Removed from the U.S. military and civilian influence, the U.S. Army in
   Germany is setting its own policy toward returning AWOL soldiers.
 
   So far, this policy has put six people in prison because they are
   conscientiously opposed to war.  MCN is launching a support campaign for
   these soldiers who are sentenced in Germany and transferred to military
   prisons in the U.S. to wait out their sentences.
 
   Due to difficulties and high costs of working overseas, the extent of
   MCN's support for U.S. war resisters has been limited, and MCN has been
   struggling to meet the needs of these GIs.
 
   "There are a good number of men and women who have been AWOL since
   January," Overlander said.  "they want to return to military authority,
   but they need legal assistance.  They have placed their trust in us, and
   we remain their only hope for independent civilian counsel.
 
   "These mean and women have said 'no' to war.  If we cannot provide them
   with committed legal counsel, they will be at the mercy of the military
   system."
 
   [From 22 August Mennonite Weekly Review.]

Article 651 of misc.activism.progressive:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!datum.nyo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!usenet.coe.montana.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!mont!rich
From: jon%kracken.uci.com@UMCVMB.missouri.edu (Jon Harder)
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,alt.activism
Subject: It's a Sin to Build a Nuclear Weapon.
Message-ID: <1991Sep10.013209.9477@pencil.cs.missouri.edu>
Date: 9 Sep 91 20:27:38 GMT
Sender: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: PACH
Lines: 39
Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Xref: nntpd.lkg.dec.com misc.activism.progressive:651 alt.activism:16906


   It's a Sin to Build a Nuclear Weapon:  The collected Works on War and
   Christian Peacemaking of Richard McSorley, S.J., edited by John Dear, S.J.
   (Fortkamp, 1991, 314 pages)

   Reviewed by Hugh J. Nolan, 50 W. Walker Road, Wayne, PA 19807

   Richard McSorley entered the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) in 1932.
   While teching in the Philippines he was imprisoned by the Japanese for
   three years and three months and lived under the threat of execution every
   day.  One year after his release (1946), he was ordained, then assigned to
   St. James Church in St. Mary's, MD.  There blacks were on one side of the
   church and whites on the other.  The white people received Communion
   first, while black parishioners waited outside.  McSorley's message
   against such racism was not well received by some of the whites.  On one
   occasion he providentially left town before a posse sent to kill him
   arrived.  This strengthened his stand against discrimination, and he
   remained at St. James two more years.

   During the 1960s McSorley was active in the civil rights movement.
   Cooperating with a student in the organization of an open discussion of
   war in 1965, McSorley was shocked to discover the controversy it stirred.
   He studied the issue even more and soon was convinced that war was "wrong,
   unjust, unchristian and evil."  He formed a seminar class on war and peace
   in the Georgetown University theology department.  Soon the classes were
   overflowing with students of all ages, eager to learn about peace.

   "I see my mission in life, as God has made it known to me, making the
   Catholic church what it should be--a peace church," he told a student
   newspaper years ago.  This book is an anthology of his talks, newspaper
   and magazine articles on peace.  After more than 30 years of crusading for
   peace, he still speaks out.

   I recommend this volume to all who want to dedicate themselves more fully
   to the gospel call to be peacemakers who walk closely in the footsteps of
   the Prince of Peace.  These are joyful pages for a peacemaker for our
   times.  May we, like him, wage peace.

   [From 13 August "The Mennonite"]

Article: 636
From: jon%kracken.uci.com@UMCVMB.missouri.edu (Jon Harder)
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,alt.activism
Subject: Gulf War Resisters: Germany.
Date: 8 Sep 91 03:08:46 GMT
Sender: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Organization: PACH
 
 
   Out of reach of the strong conscientious objector support groups in the
   United States, the U.S. Army in Germany is putting its Gulf War resisters
   behind bars, one by one.
 
   The Military Counseling Network (MCN), a civilian non-profit agency, has
   been supporting the nearly 45 COs who need legal help in Germany, six of
   whom have been imprisoned so far with sentences ranging from four to 27
   months.
 
   The Gulf crisis prompted an increase in CO applications from among the
   250,000 soldiers stationed in Germany.  Interest in CO status increased
   from eight cases in the previous four years to 70 claims and more than
   1,000 inquiries since the beginning of Operation Desert Shield in August.
   All were filed with MCN.
 
   From the beginning, the U.S. Army in Europe has been brutal in its
   treatment of COs.  One victim of military policy is Sgt. Derrick Jones.
 
   After deciding he could not kill, Jones applied for a CO discharge.  On
   Christmas night, when his unit was ordered to report for deployment to the
   Gulf, Jones went AWOL.  While in hiding, he got a lawyer and called his
   captain.
 
   Before his unit was to ship out, the Army promised Jones that if he
   returned to his unit he would face discipline for leaving his unit, but
   "No problem.... You will not fly."
 
   When Jones arrived six hours later, military police handcuffed him and
   flew him to Saudi Arabia.  Jones went into shock.
 
   His wife, Karen, had no idea her husband had left the country.  From Saudi
   Arabia, Jones contacted her to say he was being ordered to carry a weapon
   despite his CO application.  He was fined and assigned extra duty as
   punishment for leaving his unit.
 
   At least 25 soldiers stationed in Germany subsequently went AWOL to escape
   the injustice of being forced to deploy to the Gulf despite their being
   conscientiously opposed to war.
 
   Some COs returned to military control without civilian representation and
   were taken in handcuffs to jail.  They are now serving prison terms for
   desertion, missing movement, refusing orders or AWOL, which together carry
   a maximum sentence of 12 years.
 
   In response, MCN began a legal project, offering civilian legal counsel to
   soldiers who would otherwise have to rely on the military's Trial Defense
   Service for representation.
 
   Clare Overlander, an attorney from New York who has put her practice on
   hold to coordinate MCN's Legal Project, has fought for fair treatment of
   these resisters as she accompanies them on their return to military
   control and represents them in military court.
 
   Despite such civilian support, the U.S. Army in Germany delivers harsh
   sentences.  An Army personnel memorandum of May 24, which reiterates
   previous policy,states that soldiers AWOL more than 90 days and dropped
   from from the rolls should be sent to the nearest Personnel Control
   Facility for out-processing.
 
   For GIs stationed in Germany, that means Fort Dix, NJ.  Fort Dix then
   calls the former unit, which may want to take disciplinary measures
   against the soldier, in which case he or she must go back.
 
   About 30 soldiers have been out-processed through Dix with other-than-
   honorable discharges, Overlander said.  But as units return to Germany
   from the Gulf, they are calling their soldiers back to Germany to
   personally try and sentence them.
 
   "Given the present climate, we are talking about the most unpopular
   defendants in the country at this time," Overlander said.
 
   Removed from the U.S. military and civilian influence, the U.S. Army in
   Germany is setting its own policy toward returning AWOL soldiers.
 
   So far, this policy has put six people in prison because they are
   conscientiously opposed to war.  MCN is launching a support campaign for
   these soldiers who are sentenced in Germany and transferred to military
   prisons in the U.S. to wait out their sentences.
 
   Due to difficulties and high costs of working overseas, the extent of
   MCN's support for U.S. war resisters has been limited, and MCN has been
   struggling to meet the needs of these GIs.
 
   "There are a good number of men and women who have been AWOL since
   January," Overlander said.  "they want to return to military authority,
   but they need legal assistance.  They have placed their trust in us, and
   we remain their only hope for independent civilian counsel.
 
   "These mean and women have said 'no' to war.  If we cannot provide them
   with committed legal counsel, they will be at the mercy of the military
   system."
 
   [From 22 August Mennonite Weekly Review.]

Article: 688
From: jon@kracken.uci.com (Jon Harder)
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,alt.activism
Subject: Ex-Army CO George Morse.
Date: 13 Sep 91 16:17:15 GMT
Sender: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Organization: PACH
 
 
   A former U.S. Army soldier, who requested conscientious objector status
   before the Persian Gulf War and served five months in jail for disobeying
   orders, has decided to move to Germany.
 
   George Morse, who was declared Amnesty International's first U.S. prisoner
   of conscience since 1987, moved to Germany last month with his wife, who
   is from Germany.
 
   According to an Associated Press article, Morse declared his belief that
   war is wrong and applied for CO status in November.  When his application
   was rejected, he began disobeying orders related to Gulf War preparations.
   He was stationed at Fort Riley, KS.
 
   After serving his five-month sentence, Morse returned to his hometown of
   Grayling, MI.  He felt unwelcome there.  So he moved to Newton, KS,
   attracted by Bethel College and its peacemaking tradition.  Now he and his
   wife Andrea, have changed their plans and moved to Germany.
 
   "Nobody who has called me a coward ... has said anything to my face,"
   Morse told the AP while still in Grayling.  "I got a telephone call last
   week.  Some guy gets the answering machine, so he gets very brave and
   starts cussing me out and my father.
 
   "I pick up the phone and say, 'Hello?' And the guy hangs up.  So tell me,
   who is the coward?  Makes me wonder."
 
   [From 5 September "Mennonite Weekly Review"]

    Financial aid for draft resisters is provided by the Fund for Education
    and Training.  Young men who do not register for the draft are
    disallowed government educational assistance.  The fund supports job
    training of higher education for those who have not registered by
    reason of conscience.  For more information, contact FEAT, 1601
    Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 750, Washington, D.C. 20009-1035,
    telephone (202) 483-4559.

    Hands Off! has names of conscientious objectors needing support.  To
    correspond with an individual, or for more information, contact Hands
    Off!, 111 E. 14th St., New York, NY 10003, telephone (212) 353-2445.

    After being discharged from the U.S. Army Reserves because of her
    refusal to report for active duty in the Persian Gulf, Stephanie
    Atkinson is now an intern in the American Friends Service Committee's
    Youth and Militarism Program.  Stephanie, 23, lives in Carbondale,
    Ill., where she enlisted in the army reserves at age 17 to earn money
    for a college education.  She says her college work encouraged her to
    question her political assumptions, while her experience in basic
    training made her realize she was opposed to war.  When she received
    the order to report for duty, she disobeyed, began to fill out a claim
    for a conscientious objector discharge, and spoke publicly about her
    resistance to taking part in the Persian Gulf War.  Following arrest by
    Illinois state police, she was confined by the military and given a
    less than honorable discharge.  Stephanie continues to speak out in
    opposition to the war and serves as a military counselor, providing
    advice and the courage of her own example to those who question their
    participation in war.  She says: "When I look back, I realize how
    little I knew about myself when I joined the armed services....I oppose
    all violence and now want to help others in the military having similar
    realizations to examine their values, resist, and file for
    conscientious objection."

    RE: .45   Mike,
    
                     This is a *VERY* difficult subject for me.  First let
    me say that I respect those who believe that war is wrong.  I, too,
    believe this but and here it comes.....When someone signs up and
    recieves money for being in the armed forces then I think that that
    person should honor their committments.  There are a lot of ways of
    avoiding a war front in the military so the concern about being thrown
    into the war without any say is not exactly true.  
    
    
    Dave

    Dave, one problem is that many conscientious objectors are opposed to
    doing any kind of work for the military, including support roles that
    are not on the front.  The feeling is that they are still helping the
    war effort if they participate in a support capacity.
    
    -- Mike

    RE:46

    I disagree Dave. Even myself as an ex-Marine believe that a person
    should follow their conscience. If the military ask you to do something
    that you feel is immoral, you should have the option to refuse.

    Peace
    Jim

Dave,

	Here's the part that gets me.  The military parallels the prison
system in its consistently and disproportionately high population of poor,
near-poor, and minorities.

	There are recruiters in our high schools.  The propaganda is
loaded with glamour, excitement, adventure and the promise of training
in several highly employable, well-paid, career fields.  The media is
saturated with it.  A huge budget is exhausted yearly in recruitment
advertising.

	Do recruiters mention that the recruit may be required to spill the
guts of flesh and blood human beings on command before the contract is signed?
I don't know for certain, but I seriously doubt it.

	I suspect a lot of people, particularly the poor and the minorities,
join the military out of a sense of futility about their options and their
future, gambling that they won't be called into actual combat.  True, this is
not the most honorable way of doing things, but.....

Richard

    RE: .47  Mike,
    
                      Is it too much to ask that a person honor their
    committments?  I really don't think so.  But you and I are different.
    :-)
    
    Dave

    RE: .48  Jim,
    
                    Yes...and end up with total chaos.  We tried that in
    Viet Nam and killed needlessly over 50,000 Americans.  I am sorry
    Jim but there are times, IMHO, when you need to fight and giving 
    every military person freedom to disobey when they felt like it
    would only lead to more deaths.
    
    Dave

    RE: .49  Richard,
    
                       Your right and I agree! 
    
    
    Dave

    Dave, if someone made a commitment to do something that they later
    realized was immoral, then I believe they have a moral duty *not* to
    honor that commitment.  

    -- Mike

    RE:48

    What did we try in Vietnam ? Ordering soldiers to kill innocent
    civilians,  or allowing soldiers to disagree ? The later we
    didn't do.

    I was in the USMC during Vietnam. If you disagreed to obey an order,
    no matter how immoral, you ended up in jail period. Your not paid to
    think, your paid to obey.

    I think there are ways that to allow military personal to make decisions 
    based on their conscience. Officers can resign if they wish, enlisted 
    personal can't. To say it wouldn't work is really subjective, cause to the 
    best of my knowledge, it's never been tried, in this century anyway.

    I must say however, that when I was in, I never was given, nor
    did I see and order given, that even today I would consider immoral.
    But, I didn't serve in combat. Combat area's are totally different
    worlds compared to non-combat areas.

    Some men that I was in with, served with the Korean ROC Marines
    in Vietnam. They witnessed rape and torture of innocent civilians
    by the Koreans, that they could  not stop, even though the Koreans
    served under U.S. command. 

    Peace
    Jim

    RE: .53  Mike,
    
                       Ok....I'll accept that and even agree with it,
    However the military is a unique situation.  By its very nature, one
    must think about what they would do if they were called upon to fight.
    It is the primary mission of the military so I have a hard time
    understanding how a person could join thinking they could and then when
    put to the test decide they couldn't.  I believe that their "moral"
    duty begins before they sign up.  Now I will admitt that 18 year olds
    might not fully understand all the ramifications of their actions, so I
    believe our duty is to educate them *before* all the propaganda is put
    before them so that once they are put to the test and asked to fulfil
    their obligation, there is no question of their actions.
    
    
    Dave

    I agree, Dave, that in an ideal world people would always consider the
    complete and definitive moral implications of their life choices before
    they embark on a particular course in their lives.  The fact that we
    humans don't always do that is perhaps the price of our humanity.  This
    is certainly true of 18-year-olds, but even many adults continue to
    shape their moral understanding; I know I do.  Certainly there would be
    no logic to Christian evangelism if it assumed that everyone always
    felt the same way about moral and religious issues throughout the
    course of their lives.

    The military has recognized that people can change their minds on this
    issue and thus become conscientious objectors.  It is possible for
    someone in the military to apply for CO status.  From what I have
    observed of the COs who have been persecuted by the military during the
    Persian Gulf war, the conversion was anything but sudden.  Usually a
    lot of soul searching took place over time; what the war did was bring
    to a head what had been fomenting over a long period of time.

    Stephanie Atkinson has demonstrated a commitment to her pacifist
    ideals.  She is now actively involved in peace issues  with the
    Quaker service organization, the American Friends Service Committee,
    where she is an intern.

    -- Mike

    RE: .56  Mike,
    
                    It would be interesting which enlistment she is on.
    
    
    Dave

    RE .54  Jim,
    
                   Viet Nam was a strange war.  Too many orders were
    questioned all up and down the line.  I was in the service at the same
    time and I saw it a lot.  Many many times I saw people hear a direct
    order and then ask why or question it.  From the President down to the
    lowest field grunt, there were too many questions and not enough
    action...the "right" action.  I agree, too many woman and kids were
    killed for no reason but then again it was a war zone and they arn't
    the safest place to live.  A very close friend of mine was in special
    forces and went to Nam 5 times....3 of them were on "A" teams and his
    real problem with the war was the inability to "fight" it as a war. Too
    many restrictions.
    
    
    Dave

    RE-1

    The real problem with the war was that it lacked populace support from
    the Vietnamese. You can't win a war for somebody else, they've got to
    win it because they want to. Afghanistan was an example of the will
    to win by the people.

    Peace
    Jim

    
              I would suggest this as a compromise.  I would have to look
    at which enlistment the prospective "CO" was on and if they had applied
    for that status *before* the Iraq invasion.  If they had applied
    before, then I would give them the benifit of the doubt....if after,
    then I would have to question their motives and tell them they would
    have to take their chances with a court martial. 
    
    
    Dave

    RE: .59 Jim,
    
                  Yes...I agree.  Viet Nam was a war fought for the wrong
    reasons for the wrong place by the minorities of our country. 
    Everything that could go wrong....did.
    
    
    Dave

    I think that the ideal situation is to treat all CO applicants the same
    way, regardless of when they submitted their application, and to
    evaluate each application on a case by case basis.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .62  Mike,
    
                      If the world was all honest I would agree. 
    Unfortunatly many would use the system to get all they could and then
    bail out when the going got tough.  
    
    
    Dave

    Dave, that is always a problem, isn't it?  I am not suggesting that all
    CO applications be given automatic approval; I am simply arguing that
    they not be given automatic rejection either.  That is how the military
    ostensibly handles CO applications anyway--each application is
    evaluated, and a determination is made.  Unfortunately, it appears that
    in practice, during the Persian Gulf war, the military simply handled
    the issue by automatically punishing anyone who applied for CO status.

    There is always the possibility of people slipping through the cracks. 
    But I would rather err on the side of respect for people of conscience
    on this issue.  I believe that is the appropriate and compassionate
    response to make.  Otherwise, why bother to have COs at all?  If our
    society wants to send its conscientious objectors to prison, it can do
    so, but we ought to be clear and honest about what we are doing, and
    not pretend that we tolerate conscientious objection to war.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .64    Mike,
    
                          You make a *VERY* good point and one that I am
    inclined to agree with.  Amazing how to calm people who seemingly are
    on opposite sides of an issue, can agree given a firm understanding of
    each other's point of view.  Thank you Mike.
    
    
    Dave

Article 1156 of misc.activism.progressive:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!mont!rich
From: Joel Sax (jsax)
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Subject: URGENT APPEAL FROM C. O.
Message-ID: <1991Oct19.061555.27916@pencil.cs.missouri.edu>
Date: 19 Oct 91 06:15:55 GMT
Sender: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: PACH
Lines: 125
Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

/* Written 12:59 am  Oct 18, 1991 by kwaldo in cdp:gen.quaker */
/* ---------- "URGENT APPEAL FROM C. O." ---------- */
As many of you probably know, Erik Larsen  was very
outspoken against the war in the Persian Gulf. He was
one of hundreds of military personnel who refused to
participate in this crime against humanity. 

As a result, the Marines want to make an example of him
so others don't follow his example in the future.  His
legal expenses are running into the thousands of
dollars. And now his court martial is beginning it will
be necessary to provide witnesses to speak in his
behalf. Airfare isn't cheap. 

This is a good opportunity to support those who took a
stand against the slaughter in the gulf and to show that
we will stand with those who refuse to simply follow
orders that result in these massacres. 

Erik recently sent us this letter, please circulate it.
Thanks for your help,

Kip Waldo

Letter From Erik Larsen 
October 10, 1991 

Dear Friends, 

  I am on trial at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina for desertion
because I spoke out, as a U.S. Marine, against war.  If
convicted, I could face up to seven years in jail for refusing to
kill.      

Just over one year ago today, on August 28, 1990, I announced at
a press conference in San Francisco that I would refuse orders to
go to the Persian Gulf.  I declared myself "a Conscientious
Objector to war." 

In May and June I was under the threat of a death sentence as the
maximum sentence for a charge of "desertion in time of war."
Thanks to the efforts of my supporters and my defense committee
the Marines dropped this charge, recognizing there was no legal
basis to charge anyone with this offense.  The sole purpose of
this charge was to intimidate me and others into pleading guilty.

Recently, I was declared a "prisoner of conscience" by Amnesty
International, which stated that I am being prosecuted solely for
my beliefs.  Several members of Congress are calling for an
investigation of the harsh way C.O.s have been treated.  

Although I was only one voice, I believe my stand of resistance
helped many others to realize that when faced with an order to
kill, one's conscience is the authority.  It is the right of
every soldier to say "no" to war and file for a discharge from
the military as Conscientious Objector.  Yet the Marines are
trying to destroy this right and they are punishing those people
who tried to exercise this right.  

At Camp Lejeune, 25 other C.O.s are currently imprisoned for
their opposition to war.  Some are serving longer sentences  than
other Marines convicted of crimes like rape and manslaughter. 
The Marines have deliberately taken C.O.s like myself from all
over the country to Camp Lejeune in order to isolate us and to
attempt to intimidate us with extreme charges and long prison
sentences.  At a time when the Soviet Union and other countries
are recognizing that it is wrong to imprison people for acting on
their religious, moral, and ethical convictions, the U.S. is
completely ignoring the long established rights of conscientious
objectors and imprisoning them. 

Despite this persecution by the Marine Corps, my convictions    
are strong.  The Erik Larsen Defense Committee, which is run by
my family and friends, has done tremendous work in getting the
word out nationally and internationally about my case and raising
money for my legal defense. 
    
Thousands of people have signed petitions, written letters and  
sent telexes to Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and to Marine  
commanders calling for my freedom and that of other C.O.
prisoners. Thousands have demonstrated in the U.S., Italy,
Germany and elsewhere.  All of these efforts helped persuade the
Marines to drop the potential death penalty charges against me.  
    
  
Yet the Marines are putting me on trial.  There are two crucial
things you can do right now.  Send letters to Representative Les
Aspin, chair of the House Armed Services Committee demanding that
Congress start an investigation of the  treatment of all
Conscientious Objectors now.  
  
Letters should be sent to:     
  
The Honorable Les Aspin     
Chairman, House Armed Services Committee     
Washington, DC 20515     
  
Write a check for my legal defense.  Your contribution of $5,
$10, $50, $100, $500 or more is vitally needed.  The Marines are
trying to isolate me in North Carolina.  My attorney and
witnesses will have to fly here from California for court martial
proceedings which continue on October 15, 1991.  My defense
committee needs to raise $20,000 just in the next months to
provide me with an adequate defense.      
Thank you for your support for peace and for the right of all
people to act on their conscience.     

  
In solidarity with other resistors,     
   
Erik Larsen    

Address:
PFC Erik Larsen 563-49-1139, Bldg. 8
H-1 Wing A, 2nd MEB, Subunit 1
MCB, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 28542-5090   

P.S. Your contribution is tax deductible if made out to the AGAPE

FOUNDATION/ERIK LARSEN DEFENSE FUND.  

Contributions should be sent to:

The Erik Larsen Defense Committee
2923 Winchester Drive

Article: 1313
From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Subject: Some marine CO's released
Date: 1 Nov 91 10:24:20 GMT
Sender: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Organization: PACH
 
/** military.draft: 125.0 **/
** Topic: SOME MARINE COs RELEASED!!! **
** Written  9:29 am  Oct 29, 1991 by wrlmilitary in cdp:military.draft **
Release of (Some) Imprisoned Marine Resisters!
 
Two of the Gulf War resisters imprisoned at Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina, were released last week, and the release of 7 more is
expected by Friday, Nov. 1, 1991.
 
The action to order their release was taken by Marine General
Livingston.  Released were those who have done 6 months of brig
time on their sentences (of up to 15 months), and one serving a
sentence of 6 months.  All were charged and convicted of missing
troop movements and desertion.
 
Released last week were: Kevin Sparrock, Oct. 21, and Marcus
Blackwell, Oct. 25.
 
Expected to be released by Nov. 1 are: Doug DeBoer, Wayne McWhite,
Keith Jones, Colin Bootman, John Isaac, George Ward, and Marquis
Leacock.
 
The releases still leave in the brig at LeJeune over nine Gulf war
refusers, reservists and active Marines.  Your help continues to
be needed for their support in direct correspondence to them and
as described below.
 
Speculation on the action by Michael Marsh, War Resisters League
staffperson who has been following the cases closely, is that the
releases appear to be the result of public and Congressional
pressure on the Marine Corps, including public letter writing to
General Livingston, who succeeded General Cooper as Convening
Authority last spring.  It may be that the releases were hoped to
forstall legislation on issues of Conscientious Objection in the
military and military justice and due process.
 
The following Congressional actions are expected:
 
1. Legislation:   Representative Ronald Dellums and others will be
introducing two pieces of legislation.  The first will establish a
review process to C.O.s unjustly treated during the Gulf War.  The
second will seek to expand and revise C.O. regulations to offer
greater protections for those filing for C.O. status, and provide
for selective objection.
 
2. Investigation: Representative John Conyers, Chariman of the
Government Operations Committee is seeking to have the General
Accounting Office (GAO) investigate the treatment of C.O.s during
the Gulf Crisis.  The GAO may call witnesses and explore documents
to uncover the story of the abuse and illegal treatment of the
soldiers, and how they were denied C.O. status.
 
Please contact your Representatives concerning the situation of
the refusers and the congressional actions.
 
For further information, particularly on support work, please
contact the War Resisters League, 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY
10012, (212) 228-0450, e-mail "wrl" (PeaceNet).
** End of text from cdp:military.draft **

Article 2286 of misc.activism.progressive:
Path: pa.dec.com!decwrl!usenet.coe.montana.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!gatech!ukma!mont!rich
From: jon@kracken.uci.com (Jon Harder)
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Subject: NEWS: Most CO's released from Camp Lejeune.
Message-ID: <1992Jan15.041153.20502@pencil.cs.missouri.edu>
Date: 15 Jan 92 04:11:53 GMT
Sender: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: PACH
Lines: 37
Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu


     More than 20 Marines who were imprisoned for refusing to obey orders
     related to Operation Desert Storm have been released from Camp
     LeJeune, N.C.

     Michael Marsh of the War Resisters League in New York said Jan. 2 that
     seven or eight Marine COs remained in prison at Camp LeJeune.  Most
     who were released had served about six months of sentences that ranged
     from 12 to 18 months.

     Marsh wrote in the November-December issue of "The Objector:" "While
     we cannot say for certain what brought about the early releases, it
     appears that public and congressional pressure on the Marine Corps had
     a positive effect.

     "Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have written the Marine Corps
     command, demanding the release of imprisoned COs.  More than a dozen
     members of Congress have written Gen. Mundy, commandant of the Marine
     Corps, calling for their release.  And Amnesty International has
     brought international attention to their plight.

     "The Marine Corps must be aware that their reputation has been
     tarnished as a result of the mistreatment, both real and perceived, of
     the COs.  It is possible that they are aware of the pending General
     Accounting Office investigation into this treatment and are acting to
     cut interest in the investigation by releasing COs.

     "Fearful of a congressional backlash, or at least tired of
     congressional attention, the releases may be part of a strategy to
     placate Congress.

     "It is also possible that the Marine Corps feels like it made its
     point and that the further imprisonment of COs would serve no purpose.
     Whatever the motive, it is clear the Marine Corps is just plain tired
     of having to deal with this issue."

     [From 9 January Mennonite Weekly Review.]

Note 160.68

>     "Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have written the Marine Corps
>     command, demanding the release of imprisoned COs.  More than a dozen
>     members of Congress have written Gen. Mundy, commandant of the Marine
>     Corps, calling for their release.  And Amnesty International has
>     brought international attention to their plight.

I didn't write, but I did make two telephone calls.  One was to General Mundy's
office.  Do you have access to the names of those released?

Peace,
Richard

	"I joined the Marines to be part of the few and the proud, to be
able to defend our country, our democracy, our way of life from the forces
of evil.  I also wanted to obtain some type of skill to help me in my
future career as a civilian.  The military offered medical and dental
benefits.  It also offered the GI bill for college.

	During training I was taught to march like a soldier, how to treat
my M-16 as my life, how to shoot and stab targets.  My whole purpose in the
Marines was to kill, to destroy, to annihilate anything out of existence.
I do not wish to be part of the killing."

				-- Sam Lwin, conscientious objector,
				former Marine Corps Reservist, Oct. 1990

				copied with permission

As I read the various notes entered on becoming a conscientious
objector, my mind invariably goes back to Joshua's predicament
as Israel was taking over the promised land.

God had ordered Joshua and all of Israel to completely destroy
the people in that land both because

  1)  The sin of that people was terrible to God
  2)  God promised the land (knowing what their sin was going to be like)
      to the Israelites

People in the land knew what the Hebrews were going to do and
knew that God was giving them success.  Therefore, they tricked
Joshua into making a treaty with him by pretending that they lived
far away.  Joshua neglected to consult God before his decision and
therefore accepted this treaty.

What I find so interesting (regardless of the morality of war which
I wasn't trying to discuss) is that Joshua was *bound* to this treaty
*despite* the fact that he was tricked.  He didn't say, "You tricked me,
we're going to kill you all anyway."  No.  He upheld the treaty and
made them slaves (but allowed them to live).

I have often thought of this as being an lesson from God as to how
we are to hold to our promises and commitments - even commitments
that we should not have made.

What this has to do with this topic is, I hope, clear.  If you make
a commitment, you are bound to it even if you later believe your
commitment to have been wrong and even if you were tricked.  I have
*much* more sympathy for those who refused to make a commitment in the
first place and are fighting for what they believe than for those
who made a commitment and then (for whatever reasons - good or bad)
refuse to honor their commitment.

Collis

    If you make a commitment to do something that you later realize is
    immoral, are you bound to honor that commitment?  Should you go ahead
    and do a terrible or immoral thing because you had earlier promised
    that you would?  Does God want us to commit immoral acts when we
    promise to do them?

    Suppose I sign up for a Satanic cult, and take a oath promising total
    obedience to it for the rest of my life.  Then, one day, I convert to
    Christianity.  Should I continue to be obedient to the Satanic cult for
    the rest of my life because God wants me to honor all my commitments? 
    
    -- Mike

    When a person gains new insights and as a result can no longer do
    something in good conscience, he must follow his conscience. However he
    must be willing to accept the consequences. Still it looks like some of
    these CO's came to their convictions a little too conveniently. Hadn't
    they given any thought to what the purpose of the military was? If they
    had doubts they should've chosen a career track that would have kept
    them in a noncombatant role. To be personally opposed to killing others
    isn't the  same as opposing anyones' involvement in war. When a country
    is faced with massive injustice its a poor time to second guess
    leadership. There are many ways to serve your country without being
     conscience for others.
    
    	During the Vietnam war when I was faced with the draft I elected not to
    apply for CO status mainly because I was knew I would be classified 4F.
    As it was, I was in the bay area when I got my notice to report. 25% of
    the people were refusing to go, so I was unable to convince them they
    didn't want me! I went on a hitchhiking trip and didn't answer my mail
    for a while so they sent my notice to report for induction back in
    Tennessee at my parents. That proved fortunate as they were more
    discriminating in Knoxville. Still, I wouldn't have been opposed to
    being in the army, just killing others. At that time CO's that were
    drafted were usually put in the medical corp.
    
    john

	Several organizations which have years of experience in military
couseling are listed below.

	Each of them conducts training seminars for military counselors.
The Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors publishes a directory
listing persons thoughout the country trained and prepared to counsel GI's.

CCCO, 2208  South St., Philadelphia, PA 19146
      215-545-4626

CCCO-Western Region, PO Box 42249, San Francisco, CA 94142
      415-474-3002

Midwest Committee for Military Counseling
      59 E Van Buren, 14th floor, Chicago, IL 60604
      312-939-3349

National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors
      1601 Connecticut Ave NW, Ste 750, Washington, DC 20009
      202-483-4514

	The CCCO's Counselor's Manual is a must for every counselor.  It
includes extensive information on the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
filing complaints, and various discharges.  "Advice for Conscientious
Objectors in the Armed Forces" and "Getting Out: A Guide to Discharges"
are essential materials to provide counselees and both may be ordered
from CCCO.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  .72

Good point, Mike.  Of course, it is clear that the God of
the Bible does not blindly call armies or wars "immoral",
so your objection breaks down there.  I know, however, that
you do consider this immoral and so you do not accept
Joshua's response as applicable.

	"As I said before, I willingly place my life at the disposal of my
country.  If my country thinks I can render greater service...by becoming
a martyr because of religious freedom or if my country thinks I am a
dangerous citizen and should not be at liberty, I am willing to take
what my country shall give me."

					- Amos Showalter, Court Martial
					  Hearing, Oct. 23, 1918, testimony
					  at trial for refusal to obey
					  military orders.