[Many articles have been written on the illegality and the immorality of
Bush’s plans to attack the people of Iraq. While many of these
articles are excellent, they are not usually directed at the people who
need to read them the most — the members of the armed forces of the United
States. If you find this information useful, please forward this
article to anyone you know in the military or to websites that they
would frequent or link to it here. I couldn’t find this online anywhere else, so I posted it despite its length. Thanks, Dennis, for forwarding it to me. ]
A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders
By Lawrence Mosqueda, Ph.D., Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA 98505
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.” (See the full statement at
www.the-rule-of-law.com/IraqStatement/.)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. For a copy of the Lichterman and Burroughs report
see www.lcnp.org/global/IraqLetter.htm)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
http://commondreams.org/headlines02/0809-08.htm)Other articles demonstrating the illegality of this war can be found at
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm and at
www.lcnp.org/global/SCIraqletter.htm.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. (See the text at
http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_oct2002/rls_oct2002/rls_oct2002_2.html)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, at http://chronicle.com/daily/2002/09/2002092302n.htm.)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
at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1114-03.htm 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 at
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1020-02.htm.)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), available
at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html, 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, available at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports. 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 at www.globalpolicy.org; Foreign Policy in Focus at
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/index.html, or the Education for
Peace in Iraq Center at http://epic-usa.org. 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 helped
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 Reservists 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
http://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.SUGGESTED RESOURCES:
BOOKS on foreign policy
- By Noam Chomsky, especially Deterring Democracy, 9/11, Rogue 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
American Friends Service Committee-National1501 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (215) 241-7000
Fax: (215) 241-7275
American Friends Service Committee – New England Region2161 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02140
617-661-6130
Center on Conscience & War (NISBCO)1830 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20009
Tel: (202) 483-2220
Fax: (202) 483-1246
Email: nisbco@nisbco.org
Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild1168 Union Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101
619-233-1701
National Lawyers Guild, National Office143 Madison Ave 4th Fl., New York NY 10016
212-679-5100
FAX 212 679-2811
Northcoast WRL / Humboldt Committee for Conscientious Objectors(NCWRL-HCCO)
1040 H Street
Arcata, CA 95521
707-826-0165
Quaker House of Fayetteville, NC223 Hillside Ave
Fayetteville, NC 28301
910-323-3912 or 919-663-7122
Seattle Draft and Military CounselingPO Box 20604
Seattle, WA 98102
206-789-2751
War Resisters League339 Lafayette Street
New York, NY 10012
212-228-0450 or 800-975-9688
Veterans Call to Conscience4742 42nd Ave. SW #142
Seattle, WA 98116-4553
Veterans for Common Sensewww.veteransforcommonsense.org
National Contacts
Citizen Soldier267 Fifth Ave., Suite 901
New York, NY 10016
Phone (212) 679-2250
Fax (212) 679-2252
Fellowship of Reconciliation521 N. Broadway
NY, NY 10960
845-358-4601
Fellowship of ReconciliationP.O. Box 271,NY, NY 10960
Fax:(845) 358-4924
E-mail: for@forusa.org
Catholic Peace FellowshipP.O. Box 41
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-004
574-631-7666
Peace Education Office of Mennonite Central CommitteeMCC US
21 S. 12th Street
Akron, PA 17501-0500
717-859-3889