|
CounterPunch
February
27, 2003
A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful
Orders
An Advisory to US Troops
by LAWRENCE MOSQUEDA
DOMESTIC
AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
As the United States government under George Bush
gets closer to attacking the people of Iraq, there are several
things that the men and women of the U.S. armed forces need to
know and bear in mind as they are given orders from the Bush
administration. This information is provided for the use of the
members of the armed forces, their families, friends and supporters,
and all who are concerned about the current direction of U.S.
policy toward Iraq.
The military oath taken at the time of
induction reads:
"I,____________, do solemnly swear
(or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of
the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that
I will obey the orders of the President of the United States
and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to
the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So
help me God"
The Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel
need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer,"
891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer",
892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92
(2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel
have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and
indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including
orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The
moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not
to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those
orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987,
Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran
and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking
his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan.
As Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly
clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer.
In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation
to disobey unlawful orders.' This principle was considered so
important that we-we, the government of the United States, proposed
that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials."
(Bill Moyers, "The Secret Government", Seven Locks
Press; also in the PBS 1987 documentary, "The Secret Government:
The Constitution in Crisis")
Senator Inouye was referring to the Nuremberg
trials in the post WW II era, when the U.S. tried Nazi war criminals
and did not allow them to use the reason or excuse that they
were only "following orders" as a defense for their
war crimes which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent
men, women, and children. "In 1953, the Department of Defense
adopted the principles of the Nuremberg Code as official policy"
of the United States. (Hasting Center Report, March-April 1991)
Over the past year there have been literally
thousands of articles written about the impact of the coming
war with Iraq. Many are based on politics and the wisdom of engaging
in an international war against a country that has not attacked
the U.S. and the legality of engaging in what Bush and Rumsfield
call "preemptive war." World opinion at the highest
levels, and among the general population, is that a U.S. first
strike on Iraq would be wrong, both politically and morally.
There is also considerable evidence that Bush's plans are fundamentally
illegal, from both an international and domestic perspective.
If the war is indeed illegal, members of the armed forces have
a legal and moral obligation to resist illegal orders, according
to their oath of induction.
The evidence from an international perspective
is overwhelming. The United States Constitution makes treaties
that are signed by the government equivalent to the "law
of the land" itself, Article VI, para. 2. Among the international
laws and treaties that a U.S. pre-emptive attack on Iraq may
violate are: · The Hague Convention on Land Warfare of
1899, which was reaffirmed by the U.S. at the 1946 Nuremberg
International Military Tribunals; · Resolution on the
Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons and Prevention of Nuclear War, adopted
UN General Assembly, Dec 12, 1980; · Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; December
9, 1948, Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the UN General
Assembly; · Geneva Convention relative to the Protection
of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Adopted on August 12, 1949
by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International
Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War; · Convention
on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental
Modification Techniques, 1108 U.N.T.S. 151, Oct. 5, 1978; ·
The Charter of the United Nations; · The Nuremberg Principles,
which define as a crime against peace, "planning, preparation,
initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation
of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation
in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of any of the
forgoing." (For many of these treaties and others, see the
Yale Avalon project at www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm.
Also see a letter to Canadian soldiers sent by Hamilton Action
for Social Change at http://www.hwcn.org/link/hasc/letter_cf.html)
As Hamilton Action for Social Change
has noted "Under the Nuremberg Principles, you have an obligation
NOT to follow the orders of leaders who are preparing crimes
against peace and crimes against humanity. We are all bound by
what U.S. Chief Prosecutor Robert K. Jackson declared in 1948:
[T]he very essence of the [Nuremberg] Charter is that individuals
have intentional duties which transcend the national obligations
of obedience imposed by the individual state." At the Tokyo
War Crimes trial, it was further declared "[A]nyone with
knowledge of illegal activity and an opportunity to do something
about it is a potential criminal under international law unless
the person takes affirmative measures to prevent commission of
the crimes."
The outcry about the coming war with
Iraq is also overwhelming from legal experts who have studied
this in great detail.
By November of 2002, 315 law professors
had signed a statement entitled "A
US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and
Set a Dangerous Precedent for Violence That Will Endanger the
American People."
Other legal organizations such as the
Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy and the Western States Legal
Foundation have written more extensive reports, such as that
by Andrew Lichterman and John Burroughs on "War is Not the
Path to Peace; The United States, Iraq, and the Need for Stronger
International Legal Standards to Prevent War." As the report
indicates "Aggressive war is one of the most serious transgressions
of international law." In fact, at the Nuremberg trials,
the issue was not just individual or collective acts of atrocities
or brutal actions but the starting of an aggressive war itself.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson stated,
"We must make clear to the Germans
that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is
not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we
must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes
of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies
will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced
and condemned as an instrument of policy." (August 12, 1945,
Department
of State Bulletin. )
In another report written by the same
authors and also by Michael Ratner, President of the Center for
Constitutional Rights, New York, and Jules Lobel, Professor of
Law at the University of Pittsburgh entitled "The United
Nations Charter and the Use of Force Against Iraq," the
authors note that:
"Under the UN Charter, there are
only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible:
in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or
imminent armed attack: and when the Security Council has directed
or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international
peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now exists.
Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iraq is unlawful."
The authors were specifically referring
to Article 51 of the UN Charter on the right to self-defense.
Nothing that Iraq has done would call that provision into effect.
The report also states that:
"There is no basis in international
law for dramatically expanding the concept of self-defense, as
advocated in the Bush Administration's September, 2002 "National
Security Strategy" to authorize "preemptive"--really
preventive--strikes against states based on potential threats
arising from possession or development of chemical, biological,
or nuclear weapons and links to terrorism. Such an expansion
would destabilize the present system of UN Charter restraints
on the use of force. Further, there is no claim or publicly disclosed
evidence that Iraq is supplying weapons of mass destruction to
terrorist.
The Bush administration's reliance on
the need for "regime change" in Iraq as a basis for
use of force is barred by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which
prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state." Thus
the rationales being given to the world, the American public,
and the armed forces are illegal on their face. (For a copy of
this report see www.lcnp.org/global/iraqstatement3.htm)
It is important to note that none of
the authors cited thus far or to be cited have any support for
Saddam Hussein or the Government of Iraq whatsoever. They and
others who do not support an illegal war in Iraq believe that
government of Saddam Hussein is corrupt, vile, and contemptible.
So is the leadership and governments of many of our "allies,"
such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan-governments that the United
States may very well attack within the next decade. It is important
to remember that Saddam Hussein was an important "ally"
during the 1980s and that many of the weapons that may be faced
by our armed forces will bear a "Made in the USA" label.
The issue here is not the "evil' of Saddam Hussein, nor
the international community doing nothing, but an illegal march
to war by the Bush administration.
Even former House Majority Leader Dick
Armey, a very conservative Republican from Texas, has warned
that an "unprovoked attack against Iraq would violate international
law and undermine world support for President Bush's goal of
ousting Saddam Hussein." Armey explicitly states "If
we try to act against Saddam Hussein, as obnoxious as he is,
without proper provocation, we will not have the support of other
nation states who might do so. I don't believe that America will
justifiably make an unprovoked attack on another nation. It would
not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what
we should be as a nation." (Chicago
Tribune, August 9, 2002, available at
Other articles demonstrating the illegality of
this war can be found at here.
In addition to the violations of international
laws, which have been incorporated into U.S. law, the impending
attack on Iraq is a direct violation of national law as Bush
claims that he has the authority to decide whether the U.S. will
go to war or not. The U.S. Constitution is very explicit on this
point. Only the Congress has the authority to declare war, Article
1, section 8, Par. 11. Congress does not have the right to give
that power away, or to delegate that power to the president or
anyone else. The President as the "Commander in Chief"
(Article 2, section 2, Par. 1) can command the armed forces in
times of peace and war, but he does not have the authority to
declare the war or determine if that war is to occur, especially
if he is engaged in illegal conduct in violation of the Constitution
itself or his oath of office. The Constitution spells out very
clearly the responsibility of the President and his oath, "I
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute
the office of President of the United States, and will to the
best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States." (Article 2, section 2, Par. 8). The
President also has the primary duty to make sure "that the
laws be faithfully executed," (Article 2, section 3).
The vaguely worded resolution passed
by the Congress in October was both illegal and an act of cowardice,
as noted by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Byrd's remarks
were made on the floor of the Senate on October 3, 2002. In part
he said:
"The resolution before us today
is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential
hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines
the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit
the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President
blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on
a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United
States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation
of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention
the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on
its head."
The full texts of his remarks are well worth
reading, not only on the illegality
of the war but also the illegality of Congress in abandoning
its duty under the Constitution.
MORAL CODES
AND LAWS
The United States is a secular country
with a great variety of religions, which are adhered to by the
majority of the people. Political leaders who claim to speak
in the name of God are rightfully looked upon with suspicion,
whether they are foreign leaders or the president of the United
States. This is especially true when the issues are those of
war and peace. Nevertheless, the U.S. often blends the border
on issues of Church and State, including in public oaths, such
as the oath which is taken at the time of induction. This author
will not claim to know the will of God, but it is valuable to
examine what the religious leaders of the country are saying
about this war. Virtually every major religion in the United
States has come out against the Bush plans for war. Again this
is not because of any support for Saddam Hussein, but rather
the Bush plans do not meet any criteria for the concept of "just
war." One would expect this from the religions that are
respected and pacifist, but it also true from those who have
supported past U.S. wars, and even have Chaplains in the service.
Below is a sample of the analysis of U.S. religious leaders:
Catholic
We respectfully urge you to step back
from the brink of war and help lead the world to act together
to fashion an effective global response to Iraq's threats that
conforms with traditional moral limits on the use of military
force. US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Letter to President
Bush, Sept. 13, 2002.
Episcopalian
The question for us now must be: what
is our role in the community of nations? I believe we have the
capacity within us to help lead our world into the way of justness
and peace. The freedoms we enjoy as citizens of the United States
oblige us to attend not only to our own welfare, but to the well-being
of the world around us. A superpower, especially one that declares
itself to be "under God," must exercise the role of
super servant. Our nation has an opportunity to reflect the values
and ideals that we espouse by focusing upon issues of poverty,
disease and despair, not only within our own nation but throughout
the global community of which we are a part. The Presiding Bishop's
statement on military action against Iraq, September 6, 2002.
Jewish International cooperation is
far, far better than unilateral action, and the U.S. must explore
all reasonable means of attaining such support. Non-military
action is always preferable to military action, and the U.S.
must fully explore all options to resolve the situation through
such means. If the effort to obtain international cooperation
and support through the United Nations fails, the U.S. must work
with other nations to obtain cooperation in any military action.
Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Executive Committee Decision
on Unilateral Action by the U.S. Against Iraq.
Lutheran
While we are fully aware of the potential
threat posed by the government of Iraq and its leader, I believe
it is wrong for the United States to seek to over-throw the regime
of Saddam Hussein with military action. Morally, I oppose it
because I know a war with Iraq will have great consequences for
the people of Iraq, who have already suffered through years of
war and economic sanctions. Further, I believe it is detrimental
to U.S. interests to take unilateral military action when there
is strong international support for weapons inspections, and
when most other governments oppose military action. I also believe
that U.S. military action at this time will further destabilize
the region. I call upon members of our congregations to be fervent
in prayer, engaged in conversation with one another and with
our leaders. In the final analysis, we must stand unequivocally
for peace. ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson's Statement on
Iraq Situation, August 30, 2002.
Methodist United Methodists have a particular
duty to speak out against an unprovoked attack. President Bush
and Vice-President Cheney are members of our denomination. Our
silence now could be interpreted as tacit approval of war. Christ
came to break old cycles of revenge and violence. Too often,
we have said we worship and follow Jesus but have failed to change
our ways. Jesus proved on the cross the failure of state-sponsored
revenge. It is inconceivable that Jesus Christ, our Lord and
Savior and the Prince of Peace, would support this proposed attack.
Secretary Jim Winkler of The United Methodist Church General
Board of Church and Society, August 30, 2002.
Presbyterian
We urge Presbyterians to oppose a precipitate
U.S. attack on Iraq and the Bush administration's new doctrine
of pre-emptive military action. We call upon President George
W. Bush and other leaders to: Refrain from language that seems
to label certain individuals and nations as "evil"
and others as "good"; Oppose ethnic and religious stereotyping,
Guard against a unilateralism, rooted in our unique position
of political, economic and military power, that perpetuates the
perception that "might makes right"; Allow United Nations
weapons inspections in Iraq, without undue pressure or threats
of pre-emptive, unilateral action; and End the economic sanctions
against Iraq, which have been ineffectual but have done untold
damage to the Iraqi people. The General Assembly Council and
the staff leadership team of the Presbyterian Church (USA), September
28, 2002.
United Church of Christ With heavy hearts
we hear once again the drumbeat of war against Iraq. As leaders
committed to God's reign of justice and peace in the world and
to the just conduct of our nation, we firmly oppose this advance
to war. While Iraq's weapons potential is uncertain, the death
that would be inflicted on all sides in a war is certain. Striking
against Iraq now will not serve to prevent terrorism or defend
our nation's interests. We fear that war would only provoke greater
regional instability and lead to the mass destruction it is intended
to prevent. UCC leaders, September 13, 2002.
Ecumenical As Christians, we are concerned
by the likely human costs of war with Iraq, particularly for
civilians. We are unconvinced that the gain for humanity would
be proportionate to the loss. Neither are we convinced that it
has been publicly demonstrated that all reasonable alternative
means of containing Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction
have been exhausted. We call upon our governments to pursue these
diplomatic means in active cooperation with the United Nations
and to stop the apparent rush to war. World Council of Churches,
August 30, 2002.
For a fuller elaboration of these and
other comments from religious leaders, such as by the Mennonites,
Quakers (Society of Friends), Unitarian Universalist, and other
ecumenical groups see www.ecapc.org. Other religious and moral
objections to Bush's plans have been articulated. In September
of 2002, 100 Christian Ethicists from major seminaries, divinity
schools, and traditionally conservative religious schools challenged
the claim that preemptive war on Iraq would be morally justified
in a simply worded statement, "As Christian ethicists, we
share a common moral presumption against a pre-emptive war on
Iraq by the United States." (See the Chronicle
of Higher Education, September 23, 2002,)
Religious resistance to Bush's war plans
can also be found in the overwhelming
vote of 228-14 by the U.S. Catholic Bishops against the war and
in the unprecedented show of unity by Chicago's top Christian,
Jewish, and Muslim leaders in the first public statement on any
national issue of the Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan
Chicago in opposing Bush's war. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer,
December 1, 2002)
It is noteworthy that the Pope John Paul
II has come out very strongly against this war in unambiguous
terms, "No to war!" The Pope said during his annual
address to scores of diplomatic emissaries to the Vatican, an
exhortation that referred in part to Iraq, a country he mentioned
twice. "War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat
for humanity." (NY Times, January 14, 2003). The Pope, a
seasoned diplomat, was not just making a moral statement about
peace; he referred to the legal codes discussed earlier in this
article, "War is never just another means that one can choose
to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter
of the United Nations organization and international law itself
reminds us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter
of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and
in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the
consequences for the civilian population both during and after
the military operations." (See Irish Examiner, 1/13/2003)
It is also important to restate that
the head of Bush's own church has come out against this war.
Jim Winkler, the general secretary of the Board of Church and
Society for the United Methodist Church has come out very strongly
against this war. President Bush has refused to meet with Winkler.
"The Methodist Church, he (Winkler)
says, is not pacifist, but 'rejects war as a usual means of national
policy'. Methodist scriptural doctrine, he added, specifies 'war
as a last resort, primarily a defensive thing. And so far as
I know, Saddam Hussein has not mobilized military forces along
the borders of the United States, nor along his own border to
invade a neighboring country, nor have any of these countries
pleaded for our assistance, nor does he have weapons of mass
destruction targeted at the United States'." (See Observer/UK,
October 20, 2002)
Individual will have to make their own
decisions about the "morality" of the war but the consensus
decision that has been developing among religious leaders is
that this war does not constitute a "just war" by virtually
anyone's standards. The concept of "sin" is also a
personal decision but again those who study these issues from
the Pope to theologians to pastors to other religious leaders
do not and cannot give their approval to the illegal actions
that the Bush administration are going to impose on the world
in general, and people of Iraq and the men and women of the U.S.
armed forces in particular.
REASONS FOR THE WAR AND
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
The reasons for war are not supposed
to be the purview of soldiers in the field. They are just supposed
to follow orders. But when a war is so blatantly illegal soldiers
need to have some background to make an informed decision about
how to conduct themselves. In a short space it is not possible
to delineate the full reasons, but it is not about the dangers
of Saddam Hussein. As indicated above, there are no credible
anti-war or peace advocates that advocate any positive statements
about Saddam Hussein or the Government of Iraq. The world, however,
in general, does not believe that the Bush administration has
any solution to the situation. In fact many believe that Bush,
himself, is a significant part of the problem.
Many people have pointed out that this
war is about the oil. It is, but it is much more than that. The
United States does not need the oil to survive but the people
in the Bush administration want to expand the hegemony that the
United States government has had since the collapse of the Soviet
Union. This is not a critique of U.S. foreign policy, per se,
but a recognition of reality. This is essentially what Bush has
been saying in his public speeches at West Point, etc., and is
very explicitly saying in his "National
Security Strategy (NSS), which he published in September
of 2002.
The NSS is the political articulation
of what the main actors of the Bush administration published
in September 2000, before the elections, before they took power,
and before the fateful day of September 11, 2001. That project
was called "Rebuilding
America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New
Century", A Report of The Project For the New American
Century. These documents are essentially the blueprints for hegemony
and for a word that has come back into vogue- Empire. These documents
are publicly available, but not often read. All Americans and
all members of the armed forces should read them. Many of the
people quoted in this article have no doubt read them and understand
the policies basic illegalities, and thus the conclusion that
the war itself is domestically, internationally and morally indefensible.
There are many critiques of the impact
of these policies-which articulate the reasons not to go to war.
Some of the better ones can be found at Global
Policy ; Foreign
Policy in Focus or the Education
for Peace in Iraq Center. There are also several other valuable
research sites.
There are also many U.S. veteran groups
that have seen the horrors of war up close and do not want to
have another generation of young Americans suffer not only the
war, but also the post traumatic stresses that emerge after war,
when they discover they have been lied to, have participated
in aggression, and then are abandoned by their government after
the wars. This war is particularly amenable to such, since there
is so much dissention, based on solid information that this war
is not only unnecessary but also illegal, and may be without
a foreseeable end.
Charles Sheehan Miles, is a Gulf War
veteran and former President of the National Gulf War Resource
Center (http://www.ngwrc.org).
He also help to found the extraordinarily useful "Veterans
for Common Sense" (http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/)
which has a great deal of information about the current situation.
On January 16, 2003, he wrote:
"This war does nothing to protect
American lives, but it will do everything to destroy the lives
of many thousands of Iraqis and Americans. This war will not
protect us from weapons of mass destruction, but it will make
it more likely Iraq will try to use them. This war will not liberate
the Iraqi people, but it will do everything to ensure they receive
a new master, one ruled by corporate profits and oil to fuel
more American consumption. This war isn't worth the life of one
American soldier." (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14952)
The idea that those who oppose the Bush
plans for war are against the troops is a fundamental lie. Support
for the troops is not done by sending them off to a war which
is fundamentally unnecessary-support is keeping them home. Support
for the troops is not done by lying to them about the purpose
and goals of the war and allowing those who will benefit and
profit a free ride on the backs of the troops. Support for the
troops is not done by making them complicit in an illegal and
immoral war-it is done by exposing the lies and giving the troops
an opportunity not to be complicit in war crimes.
A group of veterans of many different
wars and eras has issued a statement that has been distributed
to active duty soldiers making some of the points made in this
article. Signers includes many well-known veterans such as Vietnam
veteran and author Ron Kovic (Born on the 4th of July), author
and film producer Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine), and
American historian Howard Zinn (A People's History of the United
States) and several hundred other veterans.
The statement "Call to Conscience
from Veterans to Active Duty Troops and Reservist" reads
in part:
"Many of us believed serving in
the military was our duty, and our job was to defend this country.
Our experiences in the military caused us to question much of
what we were taught. Now we see our REAL duty is to encourage
you as members of the U.S. armed forces to find out what you
are being sent to fight and die for and what the consequences
of your actions will be for humanity. We call upon you, the active
duty and reservists, to follow your conscience and do the right
thing.
In the last Gulf War, as troops, we were
ordered to murder from a safe distance. We destroyed much of
Iraq from the air, killing hundreds of thousands, including civilians.
We remember the road to Basra -- the Highway of Death -- where
we were ordered to kill fleeing Iraqis. We bulldozed trenches,
burying people alive. The use of depleted uranium weapons left
the battlefields radioactive. Massive use of pesticides, experimental
drugs, burning chemical weapons depots and oil fires combined
to create a toxic cocktail affecting both the Iraqi people and
Gulf War veterans today. One in four Gulf War veterans is disabled.
If you choose to participate in the invasion
of Iraq you will be part of an occupying army. Do you know what
it is like to look into the eyes of a people that hate you to
your core? You should think about what your "mission"
really is. You are being sent to invade and occupy a people who,
like you and me, are only trying to live their lives and raise
their kids. They pose no threat to the United States even though
they have a brutal dictator as their leader. Who is the U.S.
to tell the Iraqi people how to run their country when many in
the U.S. don't even believe their own President was legally elected?
There is no honor in murder. This war
is murder by another name. When, in an unjust war, an errant
bomb dropped kills a mother and her child it is not "collateral
damage," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a child dies
of dysentery because a bomb damaged a sewage treatment plant,
it is not "destroying enemy infrastructure," it is
murder. When, in an unjust war, a father dies of a heart attack
because a bomb disrupted the phone lines so he could not call
an ambulance, it is not "neutralizing command and control
facilities," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a thousand
poor farmer conscripts die in a trench defending a town they
have lived in their whole lives, it is not victory, it is murder.
If the people of the world are ever to
be free, there must come a time when being a citizen of the world
takes precedence over being the soldier of a nation. Now is that
time. When orders come to ship out, your response will profoundly
impact the lives of millions of people in the Middle East and
here at home. Your response will help set the course of our future.
You will have choices all along the way. Your commanders want
you to obey. We urge you to think. We urge you to make your choices
based on your conscience. If you choose to resist, we will support
you and stand with you because we have come to understand that
our REAL duty is to the people of the world and to our common
future." (To see the full statement and view all the signatures
see www.calltoconscience.net.)
The choices that those in the military
and their supporters face are hard ones. Let us begin with some
undisputed options. Members of the armed forces are sworn to
protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
They are also sworn to obey all LAWFUL orders and have an affirmative
duty to DISOBEY all UNLAWFUL orders.
The unelected president will not tell
his troops or his commanders that he is issuing unlawful orders.
Few, if any, of the top commanders will tell their troops that
they are issuing unlawful orders. Those on the front lines, those
who fly the planes, those who target Cruise missiles and other
weapons of mass destruction need to make decisions. According
to International Law, Domestic Law, the Constitution, and various
Moral Codes it is not enough to say or believe that one is just
"doing their job" or just "following orders."
Decisions have to be made.
One should check out the sources of information
presented in this article, to see if International Law still
applies to America, to see if the Constitution still applies,
to see if the Pope and other national and international members
of the clergy are right in their moral objections to this war,
to see if the legal arguments are valid against the war or for
the war. One should investigate if they are being lied to by
their unelected commander in chief. Members of the armed forces
have a sworn and sacred duty to uphold the law and the Constitution.
According to the laws, international, domestic, and moral, the
interpretation of whether orders are legal are not only the responsibility
of "superior officers," but is needed each level of
command, and by those who execute those commands.
Please note that the information presented
here is not meant to encourage one to break the law, but rather
to follow international, domestic, and moral laws. The information
here is not intended to encourage one to break one's oath but
rather to be true to one's duty and conscience and make an informed
decision.
If the decision is made that the orders
to begin or continue the war are illegal, then each bomb dropped
will be a war crime, each bomb loaded will be a war crime, each
support effort will be aiding and abetting a crime. Each death,
especially that of a civilian, will be a war crime (not collateral
damage). If the war itself is a crime than all efforts that aid
in that effort are criminal. Given that over 50% of the people
of Iraq are children under the age of 16, this will be a war
against children and a crime against humanity. The decision
to obey one's oath and not follow illegal orders is no doubt
a difficult one, and one that will probably result in punishment
from those who issue the illegal orders. One should not take
this issue lightly, just as one should not take the decision
to follow an illegal order lightly. There will no doubt be consequences
for those who follow their conscience. It is the duty of all
who recognize the illegality of the war to support all resisters.
For examples on how hundreds of thousands of GIs resisted the
illegal war in Vietnam (by the U.S. Governments own admission
in the Pentagon Papers) read Howard Zinn's "A People's History
of the United States," Chapter 18. For a personal account
of a brave officer's resistance in Vietnam and later, see "Witness
to War" by Charles Clement.
I am aware that many active duty personnel
and reservist already have grave doubts and reservations about
the conduct of this war, just as do significant numbers of veterans
and the general public and citizenry. Those who have severe doubts
about the legality of what they are "ordered" to do
should talk to their comrades in arms, their spiritual advisor
(if they have one), and should contact one of the groups listed
below and weigh their options.
There may well be some safety in numbers.
Albert Einstein, the genius physicist, once stated that if 2%
of the military refused to fight or participate, the wars could
not continue. Time is short. Or if you are reading this after
the hostilities have commenced, it is time to stop the madness
and war crimes.
At the end of this article there is contact
information for organizations that have historically assisted
active duty personnel, reservist, or veterans of conscience who
desire specific legal, political, or moral guidance in time of
war. If possible, these would be good organizations to contact.
As the veterans "Call to Conscience" statement notes
"if you have questions or doubts about your role in the
military (for any reason) or in this war, help is available.
Contact one of the organizations listed below. They can discuss
your situation and concerns, give you information on your legal
rights, and help you sort out your possible choices." These
organizations are listed for your information and are not responsible
for the contents of this article.
Also listed below are sources of information
that may be useful about the current situation, in addition to
the sources listed in the article.
Lawrence Mosqueda, Ph.D. teaches at The Evergreen State College
in Olympia, Washington. He can be reached at mosqueda@evergreen.edu
SUGGESTED RESOURCES:
BOOKS on foreign policy
Noam Chomsky, especially Deterring Democracy,
9/11, Rouge States
Phyllis Bennis, Before and After: U.S.
Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis
Gilbert Achcar, The Clash of Barbarisms:
September 11 and the Making of the New World Disorder
William Blum, Killing Hope
Dilip Hiro, Iraq, In the Eye of the Storm
WEB SITES
Alternative News and analysis,
www.commondreams.org
www.alternet.org;
www.fair.org
Alternative Analysis,
www.globalexchange.org;
www.znet.org
Middle East Analysis,
www.merip.org;
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/index.html
English Reports from Iraq,
http://www.iraqjournal.org/jeremybio.html
ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE HELPED GIs IN
THE PAST
(Some are religious, some political, some pacifist)
Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO) The GI Rights
Hotline (800) 394-9544 (215) 563-4620 Fax (510) 465-2459 630
Twentieth Street #302 Oakland, CA 94612 girights@objector.org
http://girights.objector.org/whoweare.html
American Friends Service Committee-National
1501 Cherry Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 241-7000
Fax: (215) 241-7275 afscinfo@afsc.org
www.afsc.org
American Friends Service Committee--New
England Region 2161 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 02140 617-661-6130
afscnero@afsc.org
Center on Conscience & War (NISBCO)
1830 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20009 Tel: (202) 483-2220
Fax: (202) 483-1246 Email: nisbco@nisbco.org
http://www.nisbco.org/
Military Law Task Force of the National
Lawyers Guild
1168 Union Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 619-233-1701
National Lawyers Guild, National Office
143 Madison Ave 4th Fl., New York NY 10016 212-679-5100 FAX 212
679-2811 nlgno@nlg.org http://www.nlg.org/
Northcoast WRL / Humboldt Committee for
Conscientious Objectors (NCWRL-HCCO) 1040 H Street Arcata, CA
95521 707-826-0165 HCCO-Help@sbcglobal.net
Quaker House of Fayetteville, NC
223 Hillside Ave Fayetteville, NC 28301 910-323-3912 or 919-663-7122
Seattle Draft and Military Counseling
PO Box 20604 Seattle, WA 98102 206-789-2751 sdmcc@scn.org
War Resisters League 339 Lafayette Street
New York, NY 10012 212-228-0450 or 800-975-9688 wrl@warresisters.org
http://www.warresisters.org/
Veterans Call to Conscience
4742 42nd Ave. SW #142 Seattle, WA 98116-4553 CallToConscience@yahoo.com
http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/CtC/
Veterans for Common Sense
www.veteransforcommonsense.org
National Contacts http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/contacts.asp
Citizen Soldier
267 Fifth Ave., Suite 901 New York, NY 10016
Phone (212) 679-2250 Fax (212) 679-2252 www.citizen-soldier.org/
Fellowship of Reconciliation
P.O. Box 271,NY, NY 10960 845-358-4601 Fax:(845) 358-4924
E-mail: for@forusa.org http://www.forusa.org
Catholic Peace Fellowship
P.O. Box 41 Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-004
574-631-7666 info@catholicpeacefellowship.org;
http://www.catholicpeacefellowship.org/
Peace Education Office of Mennonite Central
Committee MCC US
21 S. 12th Street Akron, PA 17501-0500 717-859-3889
tmp@mccus.org http://www.mcc.org/ask-a-vet/index.html
Yesterday's
Features
CounterPunch Exclusive!
Ann Harrison
Mistrial?
Rosenthal Jurors Say They Received Outside Legal Advice
Carl Estabrook
Israel
and the US War on Iraq
Ken O'Keefe
Diary
of a Human Shield
Ray McGovern
Colin
Powell's Blurry Pictures: A Former CIA Man Asks If Intelligence
Analysts Are Still Free to "Tell It Like It Is"
William Hughes
Mona Charen: a True Enemy of Freedom
Linda Heard
Sharon's Bitter Dream of Empire
Fran Quigley
The
Survival of Both Peoples
Paul Dean
The Infallible Opinion Poll
Alexander Cockburn
Crowds
and Panic; Hitchens and Booze; Lomax and Son House, the Rip-Off
Continues
Tom Wells
Peek-A-Boo with Duct Tape
Edward Teague
An Open Letter to Tony Blair: Stand Tall, But Tell the Truth
Jack McCarthy
Press Ganging Sami Al-Arian
Website of the Day
Rummy
and Saddam: the Handshake
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
February 22
/ 23, 2003
Laura Flanders
Security Threat?
Bernadette Devlin McAliskey Barred Entry to US
Alexander Cockburn
The Trouble with E-Bombs
Kathy Kelly
Letter from Baghdad
Tight Squeeze
Subcomandate
Marcos
A Universal
No to the War of Fear
William Cook
Armageddon Anxiety
Jo Freeman
Conservative Women
Michael Colby
Howard Dean is No Green
Ben Tripp
Fact-Checking the Constitution
Joanne Mariner
Pets Unite!
Richard Falk and David Krieger
Iraq and the Failures of Democracy
Uri Avnery
War Crimes and Sharon
Ian Williams
John Bolton in Jerusalem
Michael Wolff
How Sanctions Destroyed Iraqi Education
William Hughes
The Zev and Ari Show
Susanna Sonnenberg
Boxing Missoula
Michael Ortiz Hill
Peace and Humility
Anis Shivani
When Kafka Aligns with Orwell
John Mihelich
The Hidden History of Butte's
Working Class
Rich Procter
Bush and His Fabled Gut
Adam Engel
Voice of the Nation
Becky Johnson
The Hopscotch Rebellion
Krieger, Tripp, Ashley
Poets' Basement
Website of
the Weekend
The
Pedro Martinez of Palestine
February 15
/ 16, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
Colin
Powell and the Great "Intelligence Fraud"
Rep. Dennis
Kucinich
The Whole World is Watching
Edward Said
A Monumental Hypocrisy
Wouter Hijink
Report from Amsterdam
"War: Do Not Feed!"
Linda Heard
At Last! Proud to be British
Lawrence Ferlinghetti
Taking a Stand on Iraq
Robert Fisk
The Case Against War
Lev Grinberg
Lessons from Israel
A War Without Legitimacy
Chris Floyd
Cold Fronts:
Bush War Profits
Ahmad Faruqui
Stepping Back from the Brink of War
Norman Madarasz
French Kisses from the Citizens of France
Adam Lebowitz
Scott Ritter in Tokyo
Kurt Nimmo
Bring Us the Head of Osama bin Laden
Forrest Hylton
The Revolt in Bolivia
Col. Dan Smith
Irrelevance and Credibility:
Bush, NATO and the UN
Wayne Madsen
The Lies of Tom Lantos
Ranjit Hoskote
The Invisible Modernities of the Islamic World
Emily Zitter-Smith
Who's Safe Now?
An American in Cairo
Rich Procter
Anybody Remember the Powell Doctrine?
Poets Basement:
Eliot
Katz, Scott Handleman, and Bruce Tomczak
Website of the Weekend
Anti-War
Posters
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|