“Operation Recovery: A Campaign to Stop the Deployment of Traumatized Troups”
\”Operation Recovery: A Campaign to Stop the Deployment of Traumatized Troups\”
Service members who experience PTSD, TBI, MST, and combat stress have the right to exit the traumatic situation and receive immediate support, and compensation. Too often, service members are forced to redeploy back into dangerous combat, or train in situations that re-traumatize them. We say, individuals suffering from trauma have the right to remove themselves from the source of the trauma. Service members who are not physically or mentally healthy shall not be forced to deploy or continue service. Learn more about what Operation Recovery is fighting for here
Mennonite Weekly: Selective Objectors
by Paul Schrag
Originally published in the 12/6/10 issue mennoweekly.org
There’s always been a problem with how the U.S defines conscientious objector. A CO has to oppose “war in any form” … Now there’s a movement to change that. … [T]he Truth Commission on Conscience in War calls selective objection an issue of religious freedom. … [Its] efforts represent an important step in advocating for the rights of conscience. Members of historic peace churches can affirm this campaign to extend moral freedom to soldiers who reject the only that matters, the one they’re told to fight.
The Christian Century: “Conscientious objection to specific wars sought”
Originally published 11/24/10 at ChristianCentury.org
The Truth Commission on Conscience in War, issuing its report November 10 in Washington, D.C., recommended that the military revise its rules to include “selective conscientious objection” and urged religious leaders to address issues of conscience during wartime.
“Training has made it so that our soldiers are much more reflexive than they are reflective about things that happen on the battlefield,” said Herman Keizer, a retired army chaplain who once oversaw chaplains in the European Command. “And when they do get an opportunity to reflect, that’s when the moral issues really begin to roll.”
America Magazine: “A Change in C.O. Status?”
Originally published 11/19/10 at AmericaMagazine.com
When the United States had a military draft, conscientious objector status was sought mostly by people who opposed all wars. But in the decades since then, the country has turned to an all-volunteer military; and the issue of conscientious objection now usually arises with people who volunteered for military service but came to have moral qualms about a specific conflict. A new report from the Truth Commission on Conscience in War documents the moral and psychological harm inflicted by the nation’s current C.O. policy and calls for revising U.S. military regulations to allow such “selective conscientious objection.”
WickedLocal.com: “Fighting the Army on conscientious objection”
Originally published 11/18/10 at WickedLocal.com (Framingham Tab)
The Truth Commission on Conscience in War released a report on Veterans Day fervently urging the U.S. government to expand the Army’s current conscientious objection regulations to include both religious and moral objections to a particular war, like the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The wording for conscientious objection requires that a soldier object to “war in any form” in order to qualify. Generally, this includes members of certain religious groups who declare themselves pacifists.
But the TCCW points out the inherent conflict when the military preaches the importance of the “just war” criteria and maintaining a clear moral compass, but forces soldiers who may be religiously or morally conflicted with a certain war to fight in it.
The Georgia Bulletin: “Selective conscientious objection to war service gets new push”
Originally published 11/12/10 by The Georgia Bulletin (The newspaper of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta)
When the United States had a military draft, conscientious objector status was mostly sought by people who opposed all war and wanted out of military duty altogether. But in the decades since the country has had an all-volunteer military, conscientious objection has almost always been about people who volunteered for military service, but once in came to have moral qualms about the specific conflict where they were expected to fight. A new campaign is seeking to ease the path for what is known as selective conscientious objection.
Religion & Ethics Newsweekly: “Religious Leaders Urge Attention to Moral Injuries of War”
Originally published 11/12/10 on PBS.org
This piece from PBS’ Religion & Ethics Newsweekly includes video interviews with Herm Keizer, Jake Diliberto, and Rita Nakashima Brock.
To mark Veterans Day, the Truth Commission on Conscience in War, a coalition of more than 60 religious, academic, advocacy, and veterans groups, released a report on the moral injuries suffered by service members.The report urged religious leaders to do a better job of educating communities about the criteria governing the moral conduct of war and the needs of veterans and their families.
The Christian Post: Churches Urged to Speak Out on War, Moral Conscience
by Stephanie Samuel
Originally published November 11, 2010 at ChristianPost.com
WASHINGTON – On the eve of Veterans Day, interfaith group Truth Commission on Conscience in War urged churches and religious leaders to break their silence regarding the moral conflict that America’s involvement in unjustified wars is putting religious soldiers through.
A group of evangelicals and Catholic soldiers, military chaplains and Truth Commission staff gathered in Washington, D.C., and testified Wednesday about their personal stories of moral guilt and confliction while serving their country in a war.
In their testimonies, veterans advocated for Christians to stand against wars that do not match the principals of just war. Church leaders were also encouraged to be vocal about the implications unjust wars have on the service men and women in their congregations.
NYTimes: “War and Conscience: Expanding the Definition of Conscientious Objection”
by James Dao
Originally published 11/10/10 at the NYTimes.com
[Today], Nov. 10, a coalition of around 60 mostly left-leaning religious, veterans and anti-war groups are calling on Congress to expand the definition of conscientious objection to allow opposition to a particular war. Leaders of the coalition, the Truth Commission on Conscience in War, assert that broadening the definition would probably lead to more troops applying to become conscientious objectors. But it would also allow for greater religious freedom in the military and improve morale among the troops, they say.
“For many of us, it is a religious freedom issue,” said Rita N. Brock, one of the main organizers of the commission. “The only religious conscience protected now is for pacifists. But the majority of people are not pacifists. I’m not a pacifist. We have a relative view of when violence is appropriate and not appropriate.”
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life: Coalition seeks moral objection to war
by Adelle M. Banks (RNS)
Originally published 11/10/10 at PewForum.org
WASHINGTON (RNS) On the eve of Veterans Day, religious leaders and veterans called for a reconsideration of conscientious objection to war, saying military members should have the right to object to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for moral reasons.
In a report issued Wednesday (Nov. 10), the Truth Commission on Conscience in War called on the military to revise its rules to include “selective conscientious objection,” and urged religious leaders to address issues of conscience during wartime.
“Training has made it so that our soldiers are much more reflexive than they are reflective about things that happen on the battlefield,”said the Rev. Herman Keizer, a retired Army chaplain who once oversaw chaplains in the European Command.
The Oklahoman: Coalition seeks moral objection to war
by Adelle M. Banks
Originally published 11/10/10 at NewsOK.com (The Oklahoman)
WASHINGTON (RNS) On the eve of Veterans Day, religious leaders and veterans called for a reconsideration of conscientious objection to war, saying military members should have the right to object to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for moral reasons.
In a report issued Wednesday (Nov. 10), the Truth Commission on Conscience in War called on the military to revise its rules to include “selective conscientious objection,” and urged religious leaders to address issues of conscience during wartime.
“Training has made it so that our soldiers are much more reflexive than they are reflective about things that happen on the battlefield,” said the Rev. Herman Keizer, a retired Army chaplain who once oversaw chaplains in the European Command.
Beliefnet.com: “Coalition Seeks Moral Objection to War”
Originally published 11/10/10 at Beliefnet.com
On the eve of Veterans Day, religious leaders and veterans called for a reconsideration of conscientious objection to war, saying military members should have the right to object to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for moral reasons.In a report issued Wednesday (Nov. 10), the Truth Commission on Conscience in War called on the military to revise its rules to include “selective conscientious objection,” and urged religious leaders to address issues of conscience during wartime.
“Training has made it so that our soldiers are much more reflexive than they are reflective about things that happen on the battlefield,” said the Rev. Herman Keizer, a retired Army chaplain who once oversaw chaplains in the European Command. “And when they do get an opportunity to reflect, that’s when the moral issues really begin to roll.”
“‘Truth commission’ urges change in conscientious-objector status”
by Bob Allen
Originally published 11/10/10 at ABPNews.com (Associated Baptist Press)
Objector status, recognized since the Civil War, originally applied to members of certain religious groups known for their pacifist beliefs, such as Quakers and Mennonites. The Supreme Court expanded the definition in 1971 to include not only members of specified religious traditions, but also anyone with “deeply held beliefs that cause them to oppose participation in war in any form.”
The truth commission pointed out that the current exemption still applies only to pacifists, a small minority among Christians, while leaving out those in the “just-war” tradition embraced by the vast majority of Christians.
“Expanding the meaning of conscientious objection”
Originally published 11/10/10 at Sermons in Stones
It used to be that in order to be granted conscientious objector status, you had to claim religious grounds; I believe you also had to be a member of a “peace church” such as the Quakers or Mennonites. In either case, this was overturned in 1965, in United States v. Seeger, which ruled that one could seek CO status based on any religious belief, defined as “a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God” of other people.
…
Now the Truth Commission on Conscience in War, on whose Planning Committee the Starr King School for the Ministry serves, proposes a further expansion of the grounds for conscientious objection. To my mind it is similarly reasonable to US v Seeger, though difficult to administer (as are people’s current claims of religious objection to war): instead of requiring all would-be COs to be pacifists, it would allow someone to object to participation in a particular, or particular kind of, war.
Truth Commission Responds to New York Times Column Decrying Treatment of Troops
by Gabriella Lettini
Originally published Oct. 23, 2010 nytimes.com
Responding to Bob Herbert’s timely New York Times column, “The Way We Treat Our Troops”, Gabriella Lettini, convener of commissioners, Truth Commission on Conscience in War, explains “moral injury” — a rarely addressed trauma of war which is distinct from the more widely known condition of post traumatic stress disorder. Professor Lettini highlights the important work which the Truth Commission is doing, addressing this and related issues. Her letter to the Editor of the New York Times, reprinted below, notes the Commission’s Report, to be released on Veterans Day.
To the Editor:
In 2009 V.A. clinical psychologists published the first in-depth description of a rarely addressed hidden trauma of war called “moral injury.” Moral injury may be accompanied by post-traumatic stress disorder, but it is not the same thing: it derives from witnessing, perpetrating or failing to prevent acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs. The long-term effect can harm soldiers at the emotional, psychological, behavioral, spiritual and social level.
As it is so tragically evident in the veteran suicide rates described by Bob Herbert, the effect of moral injury can foster internal conflict and self-condemnation that become intolerable. American society has the responsibility not to leave its veterans alone in this struggle.
The Truth Commission on Conscience in War addresses these issues, involving veterans, scholars, religious and community leaders, psychologists, lawyers, educators, veteran families and military chaplains. Its report will be officially released on Veterans Day.
Gabriella Lettini
Berkeley, Calif., Oct. 23, 2010
The writer, an associate professor of ethics at the Starr King School for the Ministry, Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, is convener of commissioners, Truth Commission on Conscience in War.
One Muslim’s Journey to Conscientious Objection
“Traitor? Coward? Peacemaker? My Story”
by Nasser Abdo
Originally published Oct. 30, 2010 at freenasserabdo.org
In April 2009 Nasser Abdo enlisted in the Army, spurred by the desire to serve his country, his god and his family. In a moving narrative, entitled “Traitor? Coward? Peacemaker? My Story”, Abdo describes the hostility he faced, during training, on account of his Muslim faith, his decision to seek conscientious objector status prior to deployment to Afghanistan, and the ensuing repercussions. Recalling the violence at Fort Hood one year ago, when a Muslim murdered 13 U.S. troops, Abdo urges Americans to heed the stories of Muslims committing their lives to peaceful struggle.
I am 20 years old and am enlisted in the United States Army as an infantryman. My mother is a non-denominational Christian, my father a devout Muslim. For the first 16 years of my life I was somewhere in between. When I was 17, I took the religion of my father and became a Muslim. It was at the age of 18 when I met my wife in Dubai, UAE, while attending an American university. Little did I know that when I first became a Muslim that I was going to learn what Islam meant to me and what I was willing to sacrifice for it.
I joined the Army in April of 2009 hoping to challenge my body, mind, and the enemies of the United States of America. Joining the Army, I thought, would be a great way to serve my country, my god, and my family …
After enlisting, I was sent to Georgia for basic training. There I learned at the hand of my chain of command exactly how well my body could perform under austere conditions and how much I was capable of. I also learned some things that I didn’t expect, like how much other trainees resented Islam—and consequently, me. Early in basic training during land navigation, one soldier threatened, “I’m gonna punch you in the face and no one is going to find out about it. Look around. We are in the woods.” He repeatedly insulted me and Islam saying, “Go pray to your god that doesn’t exist or your pedophile prophet. **** you.”
During the training cycle I persistently reassured my comrades that my religion did not make me an enemy of theirs or an enemy of the state.
Abdo completed basic and advanced training, and was chosen for two different Army schools, including a high intensity five-month language program to study Pashto. With deployment approaching, Abdo delved deeply into the tenets of his faith.
As I explain in my conscientious objector (CO) application, “As the time to deploy neared, so my concern for how god would judge my affiliation with the army grew.” I wanted to know whether going to war was the right thing to do as a Muslim. I researched, searching for the truth. In turn, as I studied Islam and Islam’s commitment to peace, I developed an entirely new perspective on war and conscience. … I began to understand and believe that only god can give legitimacy to war and not humankind. My understanding of Islam showed me that I could not participate in any human-declared war.” That’s when I realized my conscience would not allow me to deploy.
Abdo filed for conscientious objector status in June 2010. He has stated that he is willing to face incarceration rather than deploy to Afghanistan. The repercussions from his decision have been striking, as he writes:
On the Savage Nation radio show, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), described me, baldly claiming, “(PFC Abdo) is a traitor. He is not only a traitor to this country, but dishonors what it is to be an American Muslim.” In a statement AIFD asks that, “Abdo be made an example of and punished to the full extent of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).” Why? Because I am a conscientious objector. …
Sojo.net: The Right to Act in Conscience
by Logan Laituri
Originally published 10/13/2010 at sojo.net
Second in a series of articles about selective conscientious objection (“SCO”), by Iraq veteran and current seminary student Logan Laituri. Noting that the Roman Catholic Church is the largest single denominational body in the U.S., Laituri documents the Catholic Church’s support of SCO, based upon the key principles of Catholic Social Teaching: sanctity of human life and dignity of the human person. The article traces the support for SCO provided by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, both in 1968 at the height of the Vietnam War and, more recently, three years ago in the context of the Iraq War. Laituri’s article calls for the church, generally, including many denominations, to provide the leadership necessary to make SCO a reality.
Autonomy of conscience is based on the very nature of the dignity of the human person, since for even a legitimate authority to refuse moral agency is to impose psychological slavery upon the person refused. …
SCO is both a moral and social imperative. Many denominations, not the least of which being the largest faith community in the United States, recognize this to be the case. Beyond being merely an issue of legalistic or juridical importance, this is an issue that draws directly from our history of progressive social justice for and by the people. The church has led the way before, and we can do it again.
Huffington Post: Just War Theory: Are We Protecting the Moral Conscience of Soldiers?
by Rita Nakashima Brock and David B. Miller
Originally published 10/14/2010 at huffingtonpost.com
Two Commissioners serving on the Truth Commission on Conscience in War describe a recent exchange at Duke University between Defense Secretary Gates and Iraq War veteran Logan Mehl-Laituri, regarding the manner in which Christian service members are treated under current military regulations.
Mehl-Laituri supports the right of service members to apply for, and receive, conscientious objector (CO) status based upon their beliefs that a war is unjust, applying Christian just war principles. Currently military regulations afford conscientious objector status only to those whose faith teaches objection to war in any form. When Mehl-Laituri inquired about the constitutionality of current regulations, Gates defended the status quo, including by stating that no one is forced to re-enlist. The Commissioners respond that the Secretary’s answer does not address the fundamental issues raised and also ignores the “stop loss” policies that have been in place. They argue for much needed change in CO legislation.
The limitation of CO status to those who object to all wars flies in the face of what the military itself teaches. Those who enlist receive instruction in principles of just war both in basic training and in the war colleges. They are told that in war, especially, keeping a moral inner compass is crucial. Yet, if they believe a war is unjust, they are trapped between having to face prison for refusing to deploy or sacrificing that moral compass to fight.
So significant and far-reaching has been this compromise of moral conscience that the VA psychiatric community now recognizes “moral injury” as a clinically identifiable condition in urgent need of treatment. An article last December, by a group of VA clinicians, defined it as psychological harm caused by “perpetrating, failing to prevent, or bearing witness to acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations” (Clinical Psychological Review, v. 29. n.8).
[T]he majority of religious and nonreligious persons alike use some form of just war theory to guide moral conscience. Just war establishes minimum moral conditions for the taking up of arms to kill another soldier. Such a code emerged among the ancient Greek philosophers and entered Christianity in the late fourth century, once Christians were able to serve in the imperial army. A version of it is what the U.S. military teaches.
Despite this long precedent and the military’s own instructions, the right of selective conscientious objection (objection to a particular war) lacks legal protection in the U. S. Despite the fact that we have signed international laws that have been used to convict soldiers in other nations of war crimes, we ignore in our military the right of soldiers to disobey an order to prosecute a war they believe is immoral. …
Members of our military forces must have the right of selective conscientious objection. As moral citizens of a democracy, we must not tolerate policies that injure our own sons and daughters. We ask a great deal of those we call upon to take life on our behalf. We should not ask them to commit moral suicide.
Huffington Post: The U.S. Soldier Who Killed Herself After Refusing to Take Part in Torture
by Greg Mitchell
Originally published on 9/15/2010 at huffingtonpost.com
On the date marking the 7th year anniversary of Spc. Alyssa Peterson’s death in Iraq, Greg Mitchell, blogger for The Nation, describes the events leading up to the suicide of this devout Mormon. Peterson was an Arabic-speaking interrogator assigned to a prison in Tal Afar. Official records released after her death listed the cause as a “non-hostile weapons discharge”, and her parents were given no definitive explanation. A tenacious reporter from her home state, Arizona, eventually uncovered the truth.
With each revelation, or court decision, on U.S. torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo — or the airing … of The Tillman Story and Lawrence Wright’s My Trip to Al-Qaeda — I am reminded of the chilling story of Alyssa Peterson, who died seven years ago today. Appalled when ordered to take part in interrogations that, no doubt, involved what most would call torture, she refused, then killed herself a few days later, on September 15, 2003. …
The official probe of her death would later note that earlier she had been “reprimanded” for showing “empathy” for the prisoners. One of the most moving parts of the report, in fact, is this: ”She said that she did not know how to be two people: she … could not be one person in the cage and another outside the wire.”
Peterson’s suicide was reportedly the only fatality suffered by her battalion during its Iraq tour. Her suicide note and journal contents have never been released.
“How Do We Repair the Souls of Those Returning from Iraq?”
\”How Do We Repair the Souls Of Those Who Come Back from Iraq?\”
by Rita Nakashima Brock and Gabriella Lettini, truth Commission on Conscience in War organizers
“The hidden wounds of war do not heal when left unattended; instead, they may fester for years in depression, homelessness, addiction, and a half-lived existence finished by suicide, which doesn’t end the suffering for those who knew and loved the one who died. Unattended, moral injury will linger for generations. Understanding moral injury is a necessary first step in a much longer societal healing process. We should begin that process today.”