2009 Vigil: Close the SOA/WHINSEC!

November 20-22

The annual vigil to close down the SOA/WHINSEC will take place from November 20-22, 2009 in Columbus, Georgia, home to the School of the Americas. Thousands of people from all over the Americas will converge at the gates of Fort Benning to keep the pressure on Congress and the Obama administration. Come to Columbus to participate in the educational (and fun!) workshops and the deeply moving vigil.

Last year’s vigil closely followed President Obama’s election, and excitement was in the air. However, the struggle to close down the SOA/WHINSEC continues with the new administration. Join social movement leaders, civil rights activists, anti-war veterans, union organizers, students, and religious leaders, as we gather once again to take a stand against the broken foreign policy represented by the SOA/WHINSEC.

Click here to view and download

the November Organizing Packet

Protest deportation of Rodney Watson

TOMORROW in Toronto

Event: Gather with supporters of war resisters in the Toronto area to protest the deportation order.

Date: Friday, August 7, 2009

Time: 4:30 P.M. EST

Location: Northwest corner of University Avenue and Queen Street West

EVERYWHERE, every day

-thanks to We Move To Canada

URGENT: Keep Iraq war resister Rodney Watson in Canada!

(August 5, 2009) – Despite a written request from all three opposition parties' Immigration Critics for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to honour the direction of Parliament and “not to use the Parliamentary recess to disregard the expressed will of the House of Commons with respect to the fair treatment of Iraq War resisters in Canada”, U.S. Iraq war resister Rodney Watson faces removal from Canada on August 10.

Rodney is an Iraq War veteran who came to Canada in 2007 after refusing a second tour to Iraq. After seeing the way the U.S. was treating people in Iraq, he left the army because he refused to risk his life in a war for oil. He lives in Vancouver.

Rodney also has an 8-month old Canadian son who needs his father to be in Canada to help raise him.

Here is something you can do from home:

Please call or email the Immigration Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the minister and the Prime Minister.

Ask them to honour the will of Parliament, and stop the deportation of Rodney Watson and the other war resisters.

Remind them that 64% of Canadians want U.S. Iraq war resisters to stay and that all three opposition party's immigration critics have called on the government not use the summer recess to disregard the expressed will of Parliament.

The Right Hon. Stephen Harper
Phone: (613) 992-4211
E-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney
Call 613.954.1064 (Ministry office)
or 613.992.2235 (Parliamentary Office)
Or email him at: minister@cic.gc.ca or Kenney.j@parl.gc.ca

Alice Wong, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister Kenney
Call 604-775-5790 (riding office)
1-877-775-5790 (Ottawa office)
E-Mail: WongA1@parl.gc.ca

Please cc the opposition party critics if you email Jason Kenney or Alice Wong:
Liberal party immigration critic Maurizio Bevilacqua: bevilacqua.m@parl.gc.ca
NDP immigration critic Olivia Chow: chow.o@parl.gc.ca
Bloc Québécois immigration critic Thierry St-Cyr: st-cyr.t@parl.gc.ca

-thanks to War Resisters Support Campaign

More info: Tell Obama to fire and prosecute Blackwater; stop paying for the odious murders

Jeremy Scahill was back on Countdown with Kieth Oberman last night elaborating on the treacherous activities of Erik the Crusader and Blackwater.

After reading the Nation article and seeing the first clip with Jeremy Scahill, I spent some time reading about Knights Templar and the Crusades. It's a part of history that I knew little about.

War Resister Spc. Victor Agosto going to jail for refusing to go to Afghanistan

I have broken no law but the code of silence and unquestioning loyalty. If I am guilty of any crime, it is that I learned too much and cared too deeply for the meaningless loss of my fellow soldiers and my fellow human beings. If I am to be punished it should be for following the rule of law over the immoral orders of one man. If I am to be punished it should be for not acting sooner.

I'm fully prepared for this. I have concluded that the wars [in Iraq and Afghanistan] are not going to be ended by politicians or people at the top. They're not responsive to people, they're responsive to corporate America. The only way to make them responsive to the needs of the people is for soldiers to not fight their wars. If soldiers won't fight their wars, the wars won't happen. I hope I'm setting an example for other soldiers.

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law

State Radio: War Resister CO Camilo video

Jeremy Scahill discusses murder charges against Erik Prince, "Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe"

video: The Resistors / Under The Hood soldiers and supporters / Victor Agosto

The Resistors from Casey J Porter on Vimeo

The Resistors is a new film made for Under The Hood Cafe.

Now I know I spelled “Resistors”. But I did spell it that way for a reason.

“...produces a voltage across its terminals that is proportional to the electric current...”

They provide balance to the system. See how these Soldiers and civilians work together to create that balance and support each other where the Army fails. - Casey Porter

Nebraska Schools guilty of child endangerment?

Are Marilyn Moore, assistant superintendent for instruction for the Lincoln Public Schools, & other administrators endangering children?

I was reading an article from the Omaha World-Herald about the Nebraska schools "burying" the military recruiter opt-out information in the student handbook rather than notifying the students and parents directly.

The Nebraska ACLU was notifying the administrators of every school district in the State about their "obligation to inform parents of their privacy rights". [see letter below]

Because of the federal No Child Left Behind Act the schools believe that they need to give the children's personal information to the military recruiters unless they opt out. However sometimes the opt-outs still end up on the recruiters list. Thanks to some of the vigilant parents who are concerned about the relationship between their kids and the recruiters, the ACLU has become aware of the lack of administrative adherence to the rules placed on the families.

According to the World-Herald article:

Amy Miller, ACLU legal director:

a parent of a child in the Lincoln Public Schools (LPS) had to search the handbook to discover the opt-out process. The parent filed a form to exclude his child and nonetheless got recruiting calls.

The military recruiter confirmed that in this case, with LPS at least, that he had the master list that they'd sent him and the student was on there,” she said.
Although officials in the Lincoln district may have made “a good faith mistake,” that instance and others prompted her to send the letters.

Marilyn Moore, assistant superintendent for instruction for the Lincoln Public Schools:

“I think we certainly would make every effort,” Moore said. “We do our best to be accurate. I also know that with 10,000 seniors we could have missed something.”

She said the district is required to notify parents for multiple programs, including eligibility for free- and reduced-price lunches, fee waivers and “probably 20 or 30 other things.”

The district doesn't send a letter each time.

“It's a lot of mailings, it's a lot of postage, and it's a lot for people to keep track of if they're getting every other day about another piece of information,” she said.

Instead, for nearly 20 years the district has included all legally required notices, discipline policies and other essential information in one booklet, which parents are more likely to keep, she said.

Some Lincoln community members have asked if the district should take more affirmative action to notify parents, but Moore said:

it's her understanding that that isn't required by the law.

Bellevue Public Schools also puts the information in the student handbook.

“They have to sign that they received a copy of the handbook,” district spokeswoman Cathy Williams said. “The students get a copy and the parents get a copy.”

Her district, which has a high enrollment of military children because of its proximity to Offutt Air Force Base, prefers to consolidate essential information rather than “send out things piecemeal.”

The district works closely with the military to give children the widest range of options for their future, she said.

“We've cooperated for years. That's who we are, and that's our community. We work with our recruiters all the time, just like we work with the colleges and universities. It may not be the right thing for all students, but it's one more option.”

While Cathy Williams claims that "The district works closely with the military to give children the widest range of options for their future", what has she done to expand their options that doesn't include teaching the children to kill other humans and training them to fill military job slots? What does the district do to protect them from the opportunistic recruiters? Although not all the recruiters are of this ilk, we know that many, especially during the current economic crisis, promise the kids opportunities that aren't going to happen and none of them can guarantee anything the recruits sign up for.

Marilyn Moore of the Lincoln Public Schools says about notifying each family,

"It's a lot of mailings, it's a lot of postage".

Is she actually suggesting that they want to save a postage stamp for a child's life. Doesn't sound like a bargain for the families who love their children and fund the districts. It sounds more like child endangerment to me. Hopefully the parents and students will organize to see that every student in their school is aware of the opt-out opportunity - and take advantage of it. Then they should follow up.

The kids can contact a recruiter if that is what they want to do anytime.

-thanks to the Omaha World-Herald

ACLU Letter sent to school administrators in Nebraska

Dear School Administrator:

Since the fall semester is approaching, we write to provide you with accurate information about your obligations when it comes to military recruiting and to inform you of various options available to you and your staff to protect the privacy interests of your students. We also are available to answer questions or to provide you with additional assistance.

As you presumably know, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires school districts to take certain actions with respect to efforts by the United States military to recruit high-school students.

1. Schools Cannot Release Any Information Before Offering Students and Families the Opportunity to Object- Prior to any disclosure of directory information under NCLB, a school must advise students and their parents that they may object to the disclosure of directory information without written parental consent and the school may not release student directory information if the student or parent objects.

2. Schools Cannot Release Information about Former Students- NCLB does not authorize the release of directory information except with respect to those students who are currently enrolled in your high school.

3. Schools Cannot Release Information about any Student Who Is Not a Senior or Junior- The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Defense have restricted NCLB military recruiter access to information concerning only those students who are seventeen years of age or older or are in the eleventh grade or higher.

4. Schools Cannot Release Students E-mail addresses, Ages or Birthdates- NCLB permits military recruiter access only to student names, addresses and telephone numbers.

5. Schools Are Not Required by the Statutes to Employ an "Opt-Out" Procedure- Though many schools have chosen an "opt-out" approach to military recruitment, some have implemented ""opt-in"" procedures. The ACLU Nebraska believes that the laws permit school personnel to choose either procedure. Whether it chooses an "opt-in" or an "opt-out" procedure, every school must notify students and/or parents of their rights and give them the opportunity either to permit or to block disclosure of student directory information to military recruiters. The school must then compile the positive responses and give the information to the arm of the military that has requested it. As long as the school provides a list of names, addresses and phone numbers to the military, it is in compliance with ACLU Nebraska.

6. Schools Are Not Required to Adopt an "All or Nothing" Approach to Disclosure of Student Directory Information- Federal law requires only that parents and students be given the opportunity to withhold their information from military recruiters and does not address the issue of disclosing student directory information to any other third party -- including colleges. Accordingly, even schools employing opt-out procedures can and should allow students to opt-out of only military recruiting.

7. Schools Must Allow a Reasonable Amount of Time to Respond - Schools should respond within a reasonable time that permits notice and exercise of students' and parents' rights to opt into or out of disclosure. The ACLU Nebraska urges you to protect the privacy of your students by setting up user-friendly procedures that notify students and their families of their rights under NCLB and makes it easy for them to control the disclosure of their student directory information. The following measures would go a long way towards accomplishing these goals:

8. Students May Opt Out, Not Just Parents - Students should be notified that students, as well as their parents, can choose to withhold their contact information from recruiters without prior written parental consent. Simple forms can be distributed for students to fill out in class. Students should also be given forms to bring home to a parent. Parents report that they find it most effective if they are sent an actual form to advise them of their privacy rights. We urge you to affirmatively provide the information to parents in a manner that is designed to draw attention to their rights rather than simply "burying" the information. A sample form is included with this letter as a model.

Finally, I should advise you that a school that releases private student information against the wishes of a parent who has completed an "opt out" form runs the risk of liability under both civil rights and tort law. Therefore, we strongly encourage you to review procedures to ensure that the information conveyed to military recruiters is limited as described above and omits all families who have requested an "opt out."

Please feel free to contact us if you have questions.

-thanks to the Nebraska ACLU

Interview with Spc Victor Agosto, Fort Hood Soldier Refusing to Deploy to Afghanistan

Monday, July 20th, 2009

New America Media

Editor’s Note: President Obama has ordered 21,000 more troops to deploy to Afghanistan this summer, seeking to more than double the 32,000 deployed in the next few months. The move is controversial inside the military and a handful of soldiers -- like Specialist Victor Agosto of Miami, Fla. -- have refused to deploy. Agosto, who has already served one tour in Iraq, told his superiors that the U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan is “immoral and unjust” and “does not make America safer.” He faces a Special Court Martial, with a maximum punishment of one year in prison and a bad conduct discharge. Agosto spoke with NAM editor Aaron Glantz from the U.S. Army base at Fort Hood, Texas.

Why did you decide to join the army?

I’d been in college for two years and I was tired of it. I wanted to be something. I wanted to see the world. I was in Miami Dade College and I really didn’t have a clear idea of what I was going to do. I was just focusing on my classes for my associate’s degree. I had always wanted to join the army, but I had initially wanted to graduate from college first so I could have a commission, but then I just decided to go in and be enlisted.

Is your opposition to the war in Afghanistan based at all on your previous military experience in Iraq?

I would say, not really. I was in Iraq when I turned against it, but it wasn’t because I had a traumatic experience or anything like that. I never shot anyone. I never got shot at. I never felt I was in any danger or anything like that. I was on the FOB [the base] the whole time. I was doing I.T. work: configuring computers, routers, servers, switches, providing customer service.

So you didn’t see or do anything while you were in Iraq that caused you to have any particular opinion about it one way or the other?

I guess the main thing that got my mind going was seeing how much money the contractors were making, and how little sense that made to me. And I guess that just got me thinking, exploring in that direction. Something is not right here. It’s a jump from that to concluding that the war is not right but that’s what got the ball rolling.

And once the ball got rolling, how did you get to the next step?

Well, I was reading books, like Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival. That was the one that just totally shattered any conception I had about moral superiority or good intentions.

Obviously there are many theoreticians writing various things about American policy. Why did this resonate with you?

Well it was just that the stated reasons for the war didn’t make sense.

And so the reasons that you concluded after doing your reading were what?

Ultimately, just for more control and to project American power. Obviously, there’s oil in Iraq. And American corporations stand to benefit a great deal from controlling the oil fields, but the main thing is just that there are benefits to obtaining control, and it’s the same in Afghanistan.

But the big difference of course is that there is no oil in Afghanistan.

That’s right.

So how did you go from having this particular feeling about the war in Iraq to refusing to deploy to Afghanistan, which is of course a different war. And there are a lot of people who would say ‘Iraq is a bad war but Afghanistan is a good war, because the people who attached us on 9/11 were based out of Afghanistan.’

Well, to me there really isn’t a difference. To me the main thing is control, just to project power. If you look at what the goal of the war in Afghanistan was -– to make American people safer -- an occupation can’t accomplish that. Those things can’t be accomplished through military means. The occupation in both places just increases resentment against Americans and actually endangers the soldiers that are there because the occupation fuels the insurgency. We go after an insurgent and kill several innocents in the process and it just creates more insurgents. And the process would continue like that indefinitely. And I think that those in power know this. And so the reason that we’re there can’t be to make the American people safer.

And that’s what you wrote in a statement to military counselors that you would not deploy to Afghanistan because it is “immoral and unjust” and “does not make the American people any safer.” What would make the American people safer in your opinion?

Well I think that the terrorist networks gain recruits from populations that have been oppressed. Until these grievances are addressed, there will always be a fresh supply of people who will join up with these extremist groups and decide that they want to attack America. There is really no battlefield solution to terrorism.

People say, 'Look, I know the U.S. military operations in Afghanistan are not necessarily the most productive, but imagine there were no American soldiers there -– the Taliban would just take over again.'

I don’t really see that as worse than what we’re doing now. As I said before, until we actually address the grievances of people in that part of the world, we’re really not going to defeat terrorism. Being there does make things worse. It wouldn’t be an ideal situation to just leave and then perhaps the Taliban would re-establish control over the country, but that to me would be better than what’s going on right now.

How do the other soldiers that you interact with at Fort Hood feel about your decision to refuse to go?

They’ve been generally positive. I really don’t get a lot of negative feedback from people. I know that negative feeling exists but people don’t usually come up to me and tell me that. And when they have, they always set it up saying they really respect me and stuff, but they disagree with what I’m doing. It’s never a bitter type of response.

Why did you decide to contest this head-on instead of just passively resisting during your deployment to Afghanistan, since as you describe it, you’re more of a back office soldier?

I guess a combination of things. I concluded some time while I was in Iraq that these wars were wrong, but I wasn’t ready to make that jump because I feared the consequences. But after a while I got to meet a lot of people in the peace community who would be supportive of me if I were to take such an action. That, combined with the fact that I just wasn’t sure if I could live with myself if I were to deploy, if I actually got on a plane and went over there. It made it almost a no-brainer for me and something I needed to do.

You’re facing a Special Court Martial, where you face a bad conduct discharge and a year in prison. Suppose you were to get a bad conduct discharge and some amount of prison time. How would you compare that to deploying to Afghanistan?

I’d say it’s more than a fair deal. I mean, if those are my two options, I’d say that’s a no-brainer right there. I would much rather go to prison for a year than go to Afghanistan for a year.

-thanks to NAM and Michael Moore.com