Features

As the election approaches, the Bush Administration is appealing for votes from the military and from civilians who want to feel safe from terrorist attacks.  

It is a good idea to check what this Administration is doing about members of the military who decide they can no longer fight and kill others. 

16. To Deal Fairly With Conscientious Objector Claims 

All males in the U.S., legally or illegally, are required to register with the Selective Service System on reaching 18 (except men on travel or student or diplomatic visas). The form no longer provides space to apply for Conscientious Objector status. 

The No Child Left Behind Act permits school districts to automatically turn over names, addresses, and telephone numbers of every high school student to the U.S. military to receive recruitment material, unless parents request otherwise. The Peace Fresno Education Committee insisted that their school board notify all parents that they could opt out. 

Since January, 2004, several hundred U.S. Service members have applied for Conscientious Objector (CO) status, although few have gone public. Very few applicants receive a discharge. Decisions on CO applications take six months to a year, sometimes longer, and statistics on COs lag about one year. The military also does not count CO applications from servicemen absent without leave. 

Report 16.1 

Department of Defense Consistently Denies Conscientious Objector Status (Gabriel Packard, “Hundreds of Soldiers Emerge as Conscientious Objectors,” Common Dreams, Apr. 15, 2003.) 

Report 16.2 

Department Of Defense Deploys Conscientious Objector Applicant to Iraq (“Army Ships GI Who Tried to File CO Claim to Iraq After First Isolating Him To Barracks,” Citizen Soldier, June 2003.)  

Report 16.3 

Marine Corps Sentences Conscientious Objector Applicant (“Demand Freedom for Stephen Funk 1st War Resister to be jailed Nov. 15, 2003 - Camp Lejeune Military Base, North Carolina,” Refusing to Kill, Nov. 10-14, 2003.)  

17. Not to Maintain Weapons of Mass Destruction or Design New Nukes 

Since 9/11, many people have become concerned about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and about some of the weapons the U.S. is using there. The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy says the Bush Administration announced that it is out of, or is trying not to comply with: Antiballistic Missile Treaty, Biological & Toxic Weapons Convention, UN Agreement To Curb International Flow of Illicit Small Arms, International Criminal Court Treaty, Land Mines Treaty, and Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.  

Report 17.1 

Administration Acts Against Commitments To Limit Arms (Nicole Deller, Arjun Makhijani, and John Burroughs, “Multilateral Treaties Are Fundamental Tools for Protecting Global Security,” Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy, June 2004.) 

Report 17.2  

DOD, Congress Trying To Change Nuclear Weapons Policies (Carl Hulse, “Senate Backs New Research on A-Bombs,” New York Times, June 16, 2004, p. A16.) 

Report 17.3 

Bush Ignores World Court Opinion on Nuclear Weapons (Walter C. Uhler, “Policy is a dangerous return to anxieties of the Cold War,” Philadelphia Enquirer, March 18, 2002.) 

Report 17.4 

U.S. Forces Use Depleted Uranium in Iraq; Many Affected (Juan Gonzales, “Poisoned?: Shocking report reveals local troops may be victims of America’s high-tech weapons,” The New York Daily News, April 3, 2004.)  

Report 17.5 

U.S. Contaminating Afghanistan with Uranium (Dr. Mohammed Daud Miraki, “The Silent Genocide from America,” Afghan DU & Recovery Fund, June 5, 2003.) 

The Government’s Duties to Protect People’s Rights 

The founding fathers had two basic concerns about the rights and liberties of themselves and their fellow residents of the new United States: fairness and freedom.  

18. To Guarantee Due Process of Law, Right to Counsel, and Habeas Corpus 

It is instructive that the people who had just defeated the King of England in battle immediately put into their written Constitution in Article I, Section 9, the Clause 2: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Anyone arrested or detained or incarcerated has a right immediately to file a petition for the writ to find out why they are being held. A hearing on a habeas corpus petition is the moment when the jailer must tell the judge, in the presence of the detainee, on what charge the detainee is being held.  

The founders placed this right in the basic Constitution, with no limitations on who has this right. They obviously intended that anyone coming within the jurisdiction of the U.S. would have this right, whether citizen or alien, illegal immigrant or person held on territory governed by the U.S.  

The revolutionary citizens of 1787 were willing to wait to spell out further rights in civil and criminal cases in the Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791. The Fifth Amendment “right to due process of law” covers both civil and criminal cases.  

To be continued... 

Berkeley resident Ann Fagan Ginger is a lawyer, teacher, activist and the author of 24 books. She won a civil liberties case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1959. She is the founder and executive director of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, a Berkeley-based center for human rights and peace law. 

Contents excerpted from Challenging U.S. Human Rights Violations Since 9/11, edited by Ann Fagan Ginger (© 2004 Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute; Prometheus Books 2005). Readers can go to mcli.org for a complete listing of reports and sources, with web links. 

V