Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Soldiers of Conscience: Opposing the Iraq War
"There are two types of bayonet fighters,
the quick and the dead. Which type are you?" This is what a boot camp
drill sergeant yells at new recruits, who then reply in unison - "the
quick!" During any war, a soldier's survival depends on this "kill or
be killed" mentality. But killing the enemy, even for soldiers who
deeply believe in the cause, is not easy. Some soldiers decide they
must put down their weapons - even if that means being court-marshaled
and imprisoned.
The ethical dilemma that anchors the film is blatantly stated in the first few minutes - "At some point, every soldier has to face the question: Will I be able to kill another human being in combat?" Until recent wars most soldiers were not willing to kill; during WWII the military found that 75 percent of combat soldiers did not fire at the enemy when given the opportunity. "Reflexive fire training" - a technique now taught during basic training wherein firing a weapon becomes second nature - has increased firing rates to almost 90 percent.
A quick reaction may save a soldier's life, but it can also mean that killing becomes so intuitive that a soldier may not clearly evaluate the situation before firing. Major Peter Kilner, a West Point professor of ethics who was recently deployed to Iraq and will serve in Afghanistan this winter, questions the implications of this training practice. "When you train them reflexively, they learn to make those decisions much more quickly, but the price of that is they're not thinking through the great moral decision of killing another human being," he says.
The concept of being a conscientious objector was acknowledged in 1775 by the Continental Congress. When the U.S. had a military draft, conscientious objectors often cited religious beliefs. Quakers, for whom pacifism is a fundamental part of their religion, notably objected to combat when drafted, but would serve in other parts of the military to fulfill their obligation. Since the U.S. no longer has a draft, why would a pacifist volunteer to flight? The answer is, they wouldn't. But some soldiers have a "crystallization of conscience," military speak for having an epiphany that turns them against the war while enlisted. They can then file for conscientious objector status.Watching the film's haunting footage of the Iraq war is so incredibly upsetting from the comfort of my living room that it is difficult to comprehend what it is actually like for soldiers who experience this unending brutality on a daily basis. Becoming a conscientious objector, like four of the military personnel profiled in the film, seems like a reasonable reaction.
The film takes the idea of conscientious objection one step further by profiling two soldiers (Joshua Casteel and Aidan Delgado) who formally became conscientious objectors, finished their tours, and were then honorably discharged; and then, in contrast, features two other soldiers (Camilo Mejia and Kevin Benderman) who were not formally recognized as conscientious objectors, went AWOL, and were court-marshaled and imprisoned. All four soldiers have now written books about their experiences.Although Mejia's and Benderman's dramatic stories made the national news, Casteel's experience is the most captivating. A staunch republican who was raised as an Evangelical Christian, Casteel attended West Point and voluntarily enlisted in the military - despite feeling a conflict with his religious beliefs. While working as an interrogator Abu Ghraib prison, he interrogated a self-proclaimed Jihadist. The man's impenetrable religious conviction so affected Casteel that he couldn't finish the interrogation. After this "crystallization of conscience," he applied for and was granted conscientious objector status, and later honorably discharged. It is very obvious that Casteel's strong-held religious beliefs were not used as a ploy to avoid finishing his tour, but rather the "nobility of service" that he grew up believing in became an illusion.
The film features respectably in-depth interviews. No one - not the conscientious objectors nor their critics - is reduced to a flashy sound-bite that misconstrues their actual opinions. This helps the film in its impartiality. Soldiers of Conscience doesn't take sides, it is not an anti-war or a pro-war film; instead, it truly surveys and attempts to understand the complexities of a moral conundrum.
Many civilians, who have never experienced extreme violence firsthand, may find it difficult to comprehend a justification for murder - or how a person can emotionally recover after killing someone. For the active duty military personnel interviewed in the documentary, they are just doing what they have to do because, according to Kilner, the "alternative's worse." But this does not mean that the soldiers who voluntarily fight are not bothered by their experiences. No one is portrayed as warmongering or hungry for blood.Soldiers of Conscience does not vilify or glamorize any of the soldiers who choose to fight. War is an unfortunate part of life and someone has to fight. The reality of modern war, not just the unpopular Iraq war, is bloody - high body counts and collateral damage. The film, possibly unintentionally, engenders a newfound respect for the soldiers that experience hell daily on the front lines, while simultaneously questioning the fundamental idea of war.
- Posted in
32 Comments so far
Show AllMs. Mosby apparently wishes to reassure her readers that Soldiers of Conscience is "not an anti-war film" as if that would be a bad thing for the documentary to express. What stood out for me when I saw this film in the theatre was not granting conscientious objector status to Camilo Mejia and Kevin Benderman while Joshua Casteel was allowed to leave the military because the military said that his claim of being a conscientious objector was valid. One had to wonder if the military thought that Casteel's belief in Christianity gave him a stronger case than Mejia and Benderman since the latter two soldiers ended up in prison while Casteel was given an honorable discharge.
Even though Soldiers of Conscience is being shown this week on PBS throughout the country, it has been canceled here in the Pacific Northwest and in its place is being shown Ken Burns's program Baseball. Members of Veterans for Peace protested to PBS in Washington state about this change so PBS relented by rescheduling it in December but burying it at about 11:30 pm. It would seem that PBS does not want to appear as being [supposedly] too liberal by airing this powerful and very relevant documentary at a more accessible time period. After all, it apparently would not do to show to the American public soldiers who do the unspeakable thing of thinking for themselves by stating that they, like their predecessors during the Vietnam War, will no longer be participating in an illegal, immoral and unjust occupation, either in Afghanistan or Iraq.
According to the PBS links provided, the show is not being shown in the West Palm Beach area either. A pity. Perhaps later.
Keep in mind that Casteel's experience as a West Point Graduate had everything to do with how he was treated by the Army.
These are full circle vets. Guys who believed and volunteered. They served honorably and continue to serve honorably by telling America what they have experienced. Because to most Americans, war is something that happens on TV and in the newspapers. It’s something that they can turn off or turn the page, and it’s gone. These patriotic veterans are trying to educate Americans about the realities if war. They feel if they can do this then the American people will start to be more critical of the government when it says we have to go fight yet another war. These guys are trying to save Americans from having to experience war first hand. If we listen to them we just might learn something from their experiences. Something that could save our lives, including our own, the future.
Hoa binh
Just as LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) deals with NARCs who went into the war on drugs and then did a 180, these vets did the same in Iraq.
The concept that a Solider/Marine can refuse to go into War on the grounds of the belief that the War is illegal/unjust is foreign to most people.
It is NOT foreign to those who have been in that position.
A war of self defense is NOT an unjust war, but a necessary evil.
It is well established Law that a War of aggression is illegal, and unjustifiable, and unworthy of support from any Soldier/Marine/Airman/Sailor---Officer or Enlisted.
The truly brave and sincere and strong ones are the ones who truly believe that they are being ordered to commit an act that is criminal and refuse to do so.
The Soldier/Marine who goes into a war believing that they are doing the right thing, even though they do commit a wrong, are doing so with the belief that "they are right in doing so". These people are brave as well, but never the less they are committing themselves to a criminal act when the war is one of aggression.
The true fools, and the ones who are the most dangerous among us are the one's who are committed to criminal complicity in a war of aggression, and the fools who would follow any order----to do anything.
It is the responsibility of those who would see this Nation be one of moral right to lead the world through example to assure that the two previously mentioned groups above are under the control of the first group---the truly brave and sincere and strong.
Then they did the right thing by applying for CO status...you'll hear no beef from me
I'm with you.
But this type of BS bothers me. "but never the less they are committing themselves to a criminal act when the war is one of aggression."
Why?
Simply because this, "criminal act" is not a truth, simply an opinion. Not factual. But after reading my posting, I need to edit the BS to comments. Thats not someting to use in rebuttal. So change the above to comments, instead of BS with my apologies.
>>Simply because this, "criminal act" is not a truth, simply an opinion. Not factual
An act is a criminal act when it violates the law. That there no desire to prosecute does not make it any less a criminal act.
Legal opinions are just that, opinions. A person stating a war an illegal act of aggression need only point to the laws violated. S/he does not need a court to deem said statement a fact.
Point of example. Germans responsible for ordering the aerial bombing of Amsterdam, and Japanese Officers who gave orders to drop bombs on Manila were both tried for criminal acts of war against Civilians.
Yet no one was ever charged for fire bombing Dresden and Tokyo even though these were acts of war against civilians and in both cases countless more Civilians died.
Is it FACTUAL that the Germans and or Japanese so charged were guilty of Criminal acts and merely OPINION that the Allied forces that committed the same acts were also guilty of criminal acts JUST because there was no prosecution of the latter, because the latter won?
In other words Thomas , are you suggesting the difference between a fact and opinion is based upon who "wins" a given conflict and or which "Instances" were ruled on by a court?
PK
GW .. thanks for pointing it out. Our tendency to glorify our 'troops' is only matched by our rabid, xenophobic patriotism.
No sir, the fact is that you can call something illegal when it is quite clearly not illegal and use your opinion to validate a statement.
The radical left has always called "wars" like Viet Nam, Korea and Iraq/Afganistan "illegal" when they are clearly not. Thats simply a fact. Under our laws they were legal. There is simply no other valid interpretation.
"Germans responsible for ordering the aerial bombing of Amsterdam, and Japanese Officers who gave orders to drop bombs on Manila were both tried for criminal acts of war against Civilians."
I believe you will find that both of those were undefended and declared open cities unlike Dresden or Manila. I'm not interested in revisiting the past. Its time for us to move on.
I have reaced the point where I feel its time to accomplish something. Many here (no, not you) are stuck on old radical ideas and tactics that have failed, are failing and will fail.
Like the statement I took exception to. It's not factual nor would 98% of Americans think it was. Do I real;ly care what Europeans think of us? Not really. They aren't quite the epitome of utopia they try to pretend. Your Canadians have problems of your own. I can delve back into Canadas history and find plenty of things to talk about, but why bother.
Convincing Americans we need to go a different way starts now. And I don't think insulting their intelligence, using revisionist historical perspectives or following the academic radical's lead along with their eletist fellows will cut it.
How many times have I seen someone here post "we can enlighten them" or something like that. The sheer arrogance of it staggers me.
I know I'm not the smartest cookie in the bag, but that makes me far smarter than the ones that have all the answers and "know" exactly what everuyone else should do.
From now on, I believe we need to address the future, not the past. If not it will be a short, short run.
Yep, I'm patriotic, if you are an American and are not, you have my sympathy.
>>No sir, the fact is that you can call something illegal when it is quite clearly not illegal and use your opinion to validate a statement.
At the fall of Berlin 10's of thousands of German women were rapeD. No soldiers were ever charged with these rapes, but any Russian that raped a German woman participated in and committed a crime. This is NOT opinion it a fact.
The Government of the USSR might not have recognized this mass rape as a crime, but that did not make it any less a crime and it factual to state as much just as it would be factual to state Josef Stalin was a mass murderer even though he WAS the State and the State called the USSR never prosecuted him for or recognized his actions as a crime against humanity.
I am driving a remote road in Northern BC and come across a car rolled over in the ditch. I peak inside and there a dead or dying man in the front seat. On the seat next to him is a briefcase with 50,000$$ cash.
I take the cash and drive away. I have committed a crime. This is not an opinion this is a fact even if nor court ever rules on it and even if I am never charged.
It is the ACTION that is the crime.
You claim that "You can not call something illegal when it is clearly NOT illegal."
You interject your own opinion, then fault someone else for giving their own. How do you arrive at the conclusion that the war against Iraq is clearly NOT Illegal, Or that torturing Iraqis is NOT illegal, or that using Napalm in Cities is not illegal?
The war in Iraq is illegal under international law.That the United States participated in the crime and that there no desire of the world courts to prosecute the United States for said crime does not mean it suddenly legal. That the United States might deem it legal is no different then Germany declaring its invasion of Poland was legal.
To your patriotism. You continually trumpet as a virtue and condemn others people lacking of it without being able to see how it prevents you from looking at any statement of fact objectively.
A case in point is your support of "John Mccain" as a hero and your condemnation of any who think differently. You point out he was tortured as one reason you think he a hero.
Being tortured does NOT make one a hero. If they tortured Charles Manson , John Gacy or Ted Bundy to draw confessions from them, while one might condemn the act of torture visited upon those people, that hardly means that these serial murderers jump into the pantheon of heroes.
He becomes "Hero" in your mind not because of the torture or things he might have did as a soldier, but solely because he was an "American" soldier. American does NOT equate to hero anymore then Canadian equates to hero.
Finally to "moving on" and not focusing on the past. We can not divorce our past actions from the actions we perform today. We can not claim "waterboarding is torture one day" and then the very next claim "It no longer torture".
We can not move on without our past to guide us. It simply asinine to auggest we can divorce our past from our future.
GwNorth
Intelligently and persuasively stated.
As to the first five sentences, agreed.
To your patriotism. You continually trumpet as a virtue and condemn others people lacking of it without being able to see how it prevents you from looking at any statement of fact objectively.
ThAt is simply not true. I never "trumpet" it. But I do respond to attacks on it. If someone says patriotism is nasty, I'll say up yours every time. I don't see that as trumpeting. If someone is unhappy with our direction I feel they should work to change it, not attack the country itself.
I've just had enough of the American Evilists. The if we could just get America out of the world, everything would be sweetness and light. They are naive fools in my opinion.
"-A case in point is your support of "John Mccain" as a hero and your condemnation of any who think differently. You point out he was tortured as one reason you think he a hero."
Again, not once have I stated McCain was a hero. In fact I stated in my opinion he was not. Go back and look. I have never condemned someone for saying he wasn't a hero. I said every time someone called the man a coward, they should be in that position before they judge. You are absolutely wrong in the position you attribute to me. The whole sentence above was false. I'm curious to know why, when every time its come up I've stated the opposite, you attribute the reverse to me?
I notice many times people don't look at what I am saying.
Waterboarding is not the past. Nor are many other pertinent things. But its asinine to keep waving the radical flag of the sixties and expect people to respond any differently than they have so far.
This is complex. but I'm going to try to point out what I'm trying to say to you every time I get the chance.
Internationalists can pretty much whistle for it in reality. The international courts have no standing. When was the last time China or any other nation obeyed an International court ruling that meant anything. Look at how they are practising trade for a hint on how they will view international courts.
"You interject your own opinion, then fault someone else for giving their own. How do you arrive at the conclusion that the war against Iraq is clearly NOT Illegal, Or that torturing Iraqis is NOT illegal, or that using Napalm in Cities is not illegal?"
I don't recall ever suggesting the torture of Iraqui's or anyone else was legal, moral or anything else but sadistic. Where did you get that idea?
To my knowledge we haven't used Napalm at all.
>>Waterboarding is not the past. Nor are many other pertinent things. But its asinine to keep waving the radical flag of the sixties and expect people to respond any differently than they have so far.
We turned our backs on the idealism of the sixties and maintained a course of business as usual since that time. I suggest buisness as usual is not working very well. It time to change not persist in the same failed policies.
The 60s folk were against wars, coups and the support of despots and torturers.
I do not find what was offerred up in the 60's as radical. Peace is not radical. I think warfare and dropping Nuclear weapons on cities is radical. I do not believe being concerned about the enviroment is radical. I find mountain top mining and dumping pollutants into our oceans and streams as radical.
On Napalm.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm
As to Fallujah they used white phosphrous against ground targets. One of the CRIMES Saddam was alleged to have committed was to use white Phosphourus as a weapon. Indeed Colin Powell reffered to this in his statements to the UN.
This is not 50 years ago stuff. This is condemn the use one day and use the same methods a month later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm
Thomas Moore,
You obviously are a "reader" so I would suggest that you study the following citations. After you read those the I would suggest that you seek the other citations that these citations direct you to. Eventually this may lead to a "realignment" of your thinking process, and if this happens, you will be free from the abject slavery of "conservatism" and the ignorance it requires of its followers. Then you can helpfully free your bothers and sisters from the same yolk of slavery-----IGNORANCE.
1). The Geneva Accords--in particular the concept of Wars of Aggression, v National Self Defense.
Incidentally you may be interested (then again maybe not) to know that he 1st Geneva Convention was in 1865 . The US Civil War inspired that first convention because the Americans had re-introduced "total war"---something that even the Romans accepted as self defeating----and the Americans unleashed Total War upon their own.
2) Nuremberg Accords (Tribunals) .
This was the answer of/by the "victors" in WWII, where the Americans declared that war upon a civilian population was illegal, and they imprisoned or executed those they found guilty.
Ignorance requires the participant to accept a "yolk of slavery", and then they paint the 'yolk' in colors they call "patriotism". So that now as in Korea, Vietnam, and everywhere else the Americans go to make war they now call the innocent noncombatants they slaughter "collateral damages" and "Patriots"
like yourself accept the duplicity as a matter of fact.
Because you are a slave to your ignorance you are quick to judge others from that low perch of ignorance and patriotism.
"My country right or wrong" will lead you to destruction.
Your Country is wrong in Afghanistan/Iraq, and was in Korea and Vietnam.
PS.
I personally will turn "your name" in to the "World Court", and you will be excused from serving on the jury at the trials of the Bush administration----don't laugh to hard on that one---it is very possible, and certainly deserved.
NativeSon
A great post!
Harlan Fiske Stone on Conscientious Objection
[22] Chief Justice Hughes, in his opinion in United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 (1931), enunciated the rationale behind the long recognition of conscientious objection to participation in war accorded by Congress in our various conscription laws when he declared that "in the forum of conscience, duty to a moral power higher than the State has always been maintained." At 633 (dissenting opinion).
In a similar vein Harlan Fiske Stone, later Chief Justice, drew from the Nation's past when he declared that
[23] "both morals and sound policy require that the state should not violate the conscience of the individual. All our history gives confirmation to the view that liberty of conscience has a moral and social value which makes it worthy of preservation at the hands of the state. So deep in its significance and vital, indeed, is it to the integrity of man's moral and spiritual nature that nothing short of the self-preservation of the state should warrant its violation; and it may well be questioned whether the state which preserves its life by a settled policy of violation of the conscience of the individual will not in fact ultimately lose it by the process." Stone, The Conscientious Objector, 21 Col. Univ. Q. 253, 269 (1919).
What was frustrating after watching this film was not knowing why Camilo Mejia and Kevin Benderman were not recognized by the military courts as being conscientious objectors. The film, or at least the prosecution, never made clear why those two should have been placed in prison and not the other two soldiers featured in the film. Selected punishments for some while others are allowed to go free. It certainly appeared to this viewer that the beliefs held by Mejia and Benderman were just as sincere as those held by Casteel and Delgado.
The concept of the citizen-soldier and that of the true warrior being one who is non-violent is an ancient, eloquent and honorable concept. In martial arts the training of the mind, nurturing and rooting of the soul, and refinement of the body is to RECOGNIZE and deflect violence.
Diplomats in the classical sense are warriors of the word not seeking advantage but balance. It is only an inhumanly imperial perspective that negates this dignity and ultimately functional necessity. Sooner or later it is the root we must return to. The longer we wait, the greater the price.
It is heartening to see that this film is part of an Army effort. Reinstate all aspects, rights and responsibilities of the Geneva Convention and habeus corpus, support veterans and LISTEN TO THEM.
The structure is broken and 'cease and desist' is in order until the administrative usurpation of our rightful place in the world community is restored. We have been made into human shields for an inhumane paradigm. No more human shields sustained through lies, deceit and denial - be that as 'consumer' or 'soldier'.
Our nation is founded on the integrity of the "INFORMED CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED". This has been patently and repeatedly denied.
Excellent post. Part of what I tried to tell GWnorth above.
Sioux Rose
OLD GOAT: Eloquent post, and I also found a previous one relating to the multi-million dollar enterprise aimed at eradicating insects quite telling. (I use insects to reflect the 12 basic spiritual paths in a children's book. The subtext is pro-ecology, that all are needed and provide important functions to the great mysterious web of life.)
PArticipating in an illegal war is illegal for the entire populace of the Nation State committing the crime(s), but by spending the money on the war and not on education the nation stste reduces the means for the soldier or possible rcruit from realizing their conscience and lehgal obligations since the nuremburg principals were laid out. You have the right not to kill is very basic.
Sioux Rose
GW NORTH: Excellent (12:15) post. I hope it gets through, but don't count on it!
Unfortunately I don't seem to gert "thru" to some of you either.
Look at the posting carefully and see if you agree with his statement about my calling McCain a hero. Then take a closer look at what you just said.
Prejudice and intolerance are not good.
Unfortunately I don't seem to gert "thru" to some of you either.
Look at the posting carefully and see if you agree with his statement about my calling McCain a hero. Then take a closer look at what you just said.
Prejudice and intolerance are not good.
Unfortunately I don't seem to get "thru" to some of you either.
Look at the posting carefully and see if you agree with his statement about my calling McCain a hero. Then take a closer look at what you just said.
Prejudice and intolerance are not good.
Sounds like a bunch of BS to me. The soldiers who are refusing mostly have recognized they were duped into participating in a criminal endeavor. Their objection is NOT to killing, but to killing innocent people who are defending their homes from a brutal occupation. I'm guessing the PBS documentary misses the point also.
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
What despicable propaganda this article is.
"War is an unfortunate part of life and someone has to fight."
War is a setup by the government to kill who would be their competitors for money, women, resources... War is a scam in the words of General Smedley Butler. It's designed to enrich and divide and devastate for the dominance of 1.
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
Wow what rancid propaganda.
It's about 5000 who have deserted. It's near 250 thousand who have chosen to prosecute an obviously criminal war and will come home to jobs as police men and corrections officers if they're not hired by blackwater for six figures.
So these guys "soldiers of conscience" are being abused by placement in the main stream media to normalize the notion that US soldiers are sane and well thought. Notice this propaganda was made with the armies permission. When the reality is they'll come home already mass murderers to literally murder their wives, beat their kids with the depleted uranium they spewed and inhaled kicking around in their brains, they'll get jobs as killer cops again exempt from prosecution, they'll do some murder sprees that won't be national news... And a lot of them will kill themselves. The only thing that has them holding on right now is wanting to see their soldier buddy's home safe. But the only side of the story explored in this propaganda piece is the few totally sane soldiers who refused. Who incidentally will not land 6 figure jobs anywhere, will struggle for the rest of their lives many with extreme psychological trauma, also seemingly neglected as covered by PBS and for which the veterans affairs administration will afford them atrocious care.
The shame has an end, but it won't be real soon.
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
Oh yeah one more thing, when the police state goes into full effect and the tanks are driving around on the roadways here and the whole place is monitored by robot attack jet x45, these long psychotic mass murderers who chose to stay over there, who are being hidden while the objectors are being pushed into the general conscience, will be on the streets with automatic weapons trained to their 90% immediate shot.
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley