Neo-Conned! Again

by D Liam O'Huallachain

  BISCHEL: Well, I used to think the GOP had two individuals of integrity left in it: John McCain and Colin Powell. I found myself wanting to believe the Powell presentation before the United Nations, even though I was still filled with doubt. Time (not the magazine) has proven Powell's presentation to have been nothing more than the same crap handed down to the masses from the beginning. As for McCain, his soul has been bought and paid for by the party. My 11 months in Iraq has reinforced my belief that the war is 100% based on lies. I owe it to fallen Iraqis, Americans, and anybody else caught in the crossfire, to speak out against the war!

  LID: Why does no one else share your point of view, if it's as obvious as you suggest?

  GOODRICH: Most people believe what's in the headlines and don't reflect on them at all; I don't know a whole lot of people who are willing to research the claims that the newspapers make. For instance, out of 300 in my deployed unit, only three of us discussed it amongst ourselves and tried to get others to think about it. But eventually our superiors told us to be quiet.

  At any rate, the way the whole military is, reflection and a “questioning attitude” is something that isn't much used in the military. As you might suspect, obedience is the main virtue that is stressed.

  MASSEY: I think you have to understand that the American people are not seeing the facts or the truth about what is going on in Iraq, because the media is very limited in their coverage. Most Americans are too worried about paying for healthcare and prescription drugs and trying to save their job from going overseas. If you're worried about how you are going to put food on the table, you don't have time to care about what is going on in Iraq. The ones who do know – the big corporations and the government – are making a huge profit off the war, and of course they don't want to stop making money.

  LID: Were you able to leave the military easily after deciding that the war was wrong? Or did your opinion on the war cause you any hardship in terms of your service in the military? Were you in the position of having to fight while thinking that the war was wrong, and if so, how did you manage to deal with it?

  GOODRICH: I spoke out a bit, but was quickly told to keep quiet. I only had six months, so I thought I'd tough it out. While in Saudi I went to a chaplain to ask about what a conscientious objector was, to find out if that was something I needed to do, and he pretty much turned me away, saying, “You're going to get out anyway; why not just hang in there, since the war won't start before you leave.”

  HARRISON: I filed for classification as a 1–0 conscientious objector prior to the invasion. Surprisingly, this did not lead to any sort of retribution from my commanders or fellow soldiers. My opinion, however, was a minority one and not one that I voiced very loudly while in uniform. I was almost faced with the proposition of deployment to Iraq when my battalion was given a mobilization alert, but in the end they only took four detachments from our battalion.

  BISCHEL: It was easy to leave the military after this experience. Frankly, I felt exploited. When I got back to the States, I said on TV that if they try to send me back I'd rather go to prison than fight a war based on lies. I later found out – happily – that I had already completed my Individual Ready Reserve time and I couldn't be called back. How I dealt with being in Iraq was through speaking out while I was there, and through further spiritual development such as prayer, meditation, and looking into philosophies such as Buddhism.

  MASSEY: Remembering when I took the oath of enlistment and clearly remembering what we learned in boot camp on the Geneva Conventions, those two things made my decision to leave the Marines very clear. I am not a mercenary. Mercenaries get paid to do operations that are beyond the scope of the Geneva Conventions, such as killing women and children, and bombing civilian areas. When I witnessed those sorts of thing in Iraq, it was very easy to see that the U.S. government was committing war crimes. At that point I knew that I not only had every right to come forward and bring these war crimes to light, but also to leave the Corps.

  It wasn't easy, though, to leave the Marines. I felt betrayed. It was kind of like being married for 12 years and waking up on your anniversary and your spouse says to you “I never loved you, I never wanted to be with you and by the way … those kids down the hall … they aren't even yours.” I am happy to say that I never had any physical harm done to me because of my decision, though I was called a coward and a traitor and things like that.

  LID: Well, it would seem that it takes an awful lot of courage to make decisions based upon your conscience and your sense of right and wrong in the face of the kinds of peer-pressure that you guys faced. “Coward” isn't exactly the word we'd pick to describe your stance. Anyway, as you all know, the U.S. government does not recognize a “selective” right of conscientious objection. In other words, someone who claims conscientious objection has to believe that all war is wrong, and not just this or that particular war. Do you think the law should be changed to allow a soldier/sailor/airman/marine to object to a war that is obviously unjust – and not participate in it?

  HARRISON: Absolutely. As a former CO applicant, I am very familiar with the regulations. The regulations actually have not been changed since the days of the draft, and are meant to apply primarily to people claiming CO to avoid being drafted. The problem with the regulations is that the only war which is really relevant at the time of application is the one that is going on or imminent – everything else is an exercise in hypotheticals. Of course, the military tries to lead you down this slippery slope by asking questions like, “What would you have done about Hitler?” and “What would you have done about the genocide in Rwanda?” Since the current situation is the only one that is relevant, that is the only one that should be dealt with at the time of application. Furthermore, the threshold is an impossibly high one, and a person can be disqualified for simply answering that they would defend themselves if directly attacked.

  GOODRICH: But you know, if the law were changed to allow selective CO status, no one would have been around to fight this war, because I think that very few people believed in it. Remember that old saying, “what if they had a war and no one came?” That's what this would have been like if the law allowed it.

  As an example of what I mean, I've been distributing our Iraq Veterans Against the War pamphlet around Camp Pendleton, a Marine Corps base in California near me. The pamphlet has our mission statement, a list of resources like the GI rights hotline, etc. Of all the marines that I've distributed the pamphlet to, 95% of them have kept it and seemed interested. Normally I would expect these young enlisted guys, ranking from about private to sergeant, to be very “gung ho” and pro-war. But these pamphlets are kept and read by almost everyone I give them to; they don't throw them away or mock me as a coward or whatever. Which means that many if not most people are open to questioning the war.

  MASSEY: I think so too. Though it seems idealistic, in my mind military personnel should be allowed to object to a war that is obviously unjust, and then they should be able to participate in another war that isn't. There are some wars that are driven by greed and money, and but then again there have been some wars that have not been driven by those things. Each war is different. And I think that there should be a panel of civilian taxpaying American citizens who decide whether an individual in the military should be allowed to receive true conscientious objector status. Military personnel exclusively shouldn't be allowed to make that decision any longer.

  BISCHEL: As you point out, conscientious objection is believing all war is wrong, and I don't feel that way.

  LID: For those of you who did not have to go through a period of opposing the war while in the military, if today you found yourself still on active duty, and commanded to participate in a war you believed to be unjust, what would you do? Would it be different than how you approached the current war in Iraq?

  MASSEY: If I were on active duty right now, I would have no choice but to go to Iraq. There are laws that have been placed so that unless you file for CO status, yo
u have to go where the military sends you. So, I would play by the rules, and if, when I got over there, I saw with my own two eyes what I saw before, I would do the exact same thing that I did – leave the Marines. I wouldn't change anything that I did this time around.

  GOODRICH: I'm not sure what I would have done if I had to stay in for another number of months or years after the war started, because meanwhile I've almost turned into a pacifist. It would be a hard decision, because it wouldn't have been as convenient for me, being that I was able to get out just as the war was starting.

  HARRISON: I would definitely refuse and take the court-martial. This is no different than how I approached the war on Iraq, outside of the fact that it took me a long time to sort things out in my mind when I was confronted with all the possibilities.

  BISCHEL: Right! Speak out, go to prison if you have to. Whatever it takes.

  LID: What would you say to your brothers and sisters who are still on active duty, and who may not have the clear idea that the war is wrong, or who may think it's wrong but not have the courage to do anything about it?

  MASSEY: I would tell them to keep a journal of everything that happens while they are in Iraq. From day one in boot camp, we are taught that regardless of rank, if you are a private or you are a general, you can call a cease fire at anytime and anywhere, even on the battlefield. We were also taught that killing innocent civilians is wrong. Sometimes you have to go back to the basics to find your answers. They have the right to refuse to do these things, and they can be protected from the military while doing them.

  HARRISON: I'd say that the most important thing in their life that the troops can do is to follow their consciences. Most people who joined the military did so because they believed in the ideals of their country and they saw military service as a way to spread those ideals. The current campaign has nothing to do with spreading those ideals – in fact, it could be argued that it is inhibiting them. Despite what they may think, they have a huge support network out there of people that would overwhelmingly help them in any way possible. And when all is said and done, this is not a choice that anyone else can make for them – but they should approach it from the perspective not of worrying about what others may think of them, but what they think each time they look themselves in the mirror – are they confident that they are standing up for what they believe and standing true to their principles?

  BISCHEL: To those who can still think for themselves I would say that dissent is patriotic. Our numbers – I mean, we free thinkers – are growing and I believe that we already outnumber the brainwashed. We need to lead by able example, speak out against the war no matter what the circumstances. I was ostracized for being an outspoken liberal while in Iraq, and it didn't stop me. Stand your ground my brothers and sisters, for you are absolutely, morally right in taking a stand against the invasion of Iraq.

  GOODRICH: You know, people say we're not supporting the troops by calling for them to come home and by calling for them to no longer be used to fight this war, but I beg to differ. The essence of support for the troops is demanding that they come home to be with their families. Those people with the yellow ribbons – how many of them have really done anything to support the troops? How many of them care enough to speak out against an illegal war?

  THE EDITORS' GLOSS: Pablo Paredes is an example of what we meant in pointing out that a soldier or a sailor does not turn off his conscience when joining the service. “Now, as far as being a robot … 'do as I say and don't question it' and things like that, I think that is a very dangerous situation for a human being, and I don't think you stop being a human being because you become a Navy sailor or an Army soldier,” he told one interviewer in December 2004. “Even within the rules that are afforded to us,” he went on to say, “we are told if at any time you find an order to be unlawful you have not only a right but a duty not to follow it. And I feel that way about any order that has to do with this war.” Perhaps there'd be a much larger number of both Iraqis and American military alive today if just a few thousand had had the courage and vision of Pablo Paredes.

  His understanding of principle isn't particularly controversial. “We support the political will,” outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers said to an interviewer in May 2005, “and unless it's illegal, immoral, or unethical, we do what we're told to do” (Los Angeles Times, May 9, 2005). The question is, what exactly would constitute an illegal, immoral, or unethical war, in Dick Myers's mind, if not this one?

  Paredes was court-martialed on May 11, 2005, for missing his ship's movement. Interestingly, the presiding judge at his court-martial seemed to think that there was at least a reasonable case to be made for the illegality of the Iraq war (not to mention others). Marjorie Cohn, a lawyer called for Paredes during the trial, explained: “… the military prosecutor was trying to undermine my testimony about the legality of the Iraq war, and he had looked at some of the articles I had written … about the illegality of the war in Afghanistan and the war in Yugoslavia, as well. And so he asked me questions like: 'Well, you would also say then that the war in Afghanistan was illegal, right?' He expected me just to have a 'yes' answer, and I think he expected that that would be such a ridiculous response that it would speak for itself.” As it turned out, Prof. Cohn made such a case, responding to the government prosecutor's questions, that when the defense asked the judge if the court had any further questions for the witness, the judge replied: “I believe the government has successfully demonstrated a reasonable belief for every service member to decide that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq were illegal to fight.” There can be little wonder why that comment wasn't extensively publicized.

  CHAPTER

  15

  Just Following Orders: One Sailor and His Vision of the Higher Law

  ………

  An Interview with Petty Officer Third Class Pablo Paredes, USN

  “To those who say I should be 'serving my country,'

  I say that what I am doing is a vital service to my country.”

  PABLO, YOU MADE headlines last December by refusing to get underway with your ship, the USS BONHOMME RICHARD, when it was headed from San Diego to Iraq. That was a bold move on your part, and presumably not one you would have made without having serious thoughts on the war. Can you share some of those?

  PP: Frankly, the military invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is both legally and morally without justification, and should not be tolerated. Unfortunately there are ways of controlling the masses, of fabricating justification, and, as Noam Chomsky puts it, “manufacturing consent.”

  The Pope condemned the war, while George W. Bush has said that God is on his side. Presented in this manner, most Christians should probably favor the opinion of the person who, by the nature of Christian beliefs, is not only someone closer to God but who in fact is someone understood to be infallible in issues of faith and morality. However, the corporate-controlled media, which bombards the average citizen or Christian so heavily, has found it in its own interest to market Mr. Bush's actions as being in keeping with Christian traditions. Mr. Bush makes headlines daily, and wastes no opportunity to toot the “man of God” horn. The Pope, in comparison, was marginalized, at least in terms of media coverage. I, for one, was quite ignorant of the Pope's public statements on the war in Iraq until after I made my decision. I was informed of them by a very devout Catholic. In this example, the crime, the fabrication of justification, the manufacturing of consent comes by way of omission. No journalist covering any press conference or presidential address or speech, after reporting on the President's claim that God is on his side, has ever reported the Pope's position. This is one example of how the masses have been controlled.

  The ongoing war in Iraq is, as I see it, frankly a crime against humanity. Reflecting on the December 2004 earthquake in the Pacific, it is hard not to compare its effects – the greatest of which was the terrible tsunami-and the war. And that's when it hits you. There was nothing
we could do to prevent the thousands and thousands of deaths that this tsunami claimed, but in Iraq our leaders have actually chosen the needless, tragic body count that continues to increase. Millions of people across Asia – and worldwide – are asking themselves, “Why did this have to happen?” and, “How can we prevent more deaths of innocent people?” In the case of the Tsunami victims, these questions have no answers. However, in Iraq, the answer to the first question continues to change. And the second has a definite and plausible response that our leaders fail to acknowledge.

  LID: In your interview with Amy Goodman shortly after your ship set sail without you, you made a specific reference to the fact that you consider any orders received that have to do with this war to be unlawful. That seems to be the logical conclusion of what you've said above. True?

  PP: Every understanding I have of our constitution has led me to believe that the right to declare war is furnished only to our Congress, and not to our President. I also understand that to engage in war, and not just to deploy military forces for a purpose much less grave than war, there must be a specific declaration of war. I have researched these beliefs and found them to be accurate. Therefore, according to the document that governs this great country, this war is, in fact, illegal.

  Now within our country, if the three branches of government that act as checks and balances to each other find no illegitimacy in the war in Iraq, then it is conceivable to say that our laws have been compromised by our government for reasons that it found to be worthwhile. Now while I disagree – and so do millions – this government is, I suppose, at liberty to govern and interpret laws within its borders.

  International law, however, is in no way subject to being compromised unilaterally. The UN Charter contains strict guidelines as to the circumstances under which war is legal. The United States signed the UN charter, and the Senate ratified it. A number of the articles in the charter dictate that if and when a nation is to deploy armed forces, regardless of the purpose, the UN Security Council must vote its consent. The UN Security Council did not approve the U.S.-lead war in Iraq. By acting against the laws that govern the international theatre, we not only broke a tradition of over five decades in which only when an international consensus of the necessity of war was reached did a nation declare war, but we also set a most dangerous precedent: defying the laws that govern our planet whenever a nation strong enough to do so feels it is necessary.