Standing with the war resisters

In the December 2004 issue of The Progressive, Frida Berrigan's "Meet the New COs" ran (pages 26-27, with illustration by Kelly Mudge) reported on war resisters who had gone to Canada with a special focus on Jeremy Hinzman, the first war resisters to go public about self-checking out and moving to Candada.



The article traced his awakening from experiences with the military, experience with the Quakers and the birth of Liam, Hinzman and his wife Nga Nguyen's child. Hinzman attempted to be granted CO status and was denied. He reapplied before shipping off to Afghanistan. In April 2003, while serving in Afghanistan, his CO hearing was held and his request was dismissed on the grounds that Hinzman was not a pacificst (which is not a requirement for CO status). Upon returning to the US, Hinzman was ordered to go to Iraq ("We were not attacking Iraq because we were under an imminent threat. Our aim there was economic in nature. To die and kill other people so that the American public could have cheap access to oil was wrong.")



War Resisters Support Campaign picks up the story there, "In January 2004 he drove to Canada to seek asylum. He is currently living in Toronto with his wife Nga Nguyen and son Liam. His refugee claim was turned down in March 2005 by the Immigration and Refugee Board. This decision was upheld by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. Jeremy is now seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada."



Back before The Nation turned into the huge suck-fest it currently is, it could and did report on Hinzman. For instance, they filed a report in Januray 2005 on him and other war resisters in Canada that actually made it into print. Naomi Klein mentioned him in a column and they did an online update the first time his claim was turned down. Then, they lost interest. Their interest in war resisters who go to Canada has never been peaked again and they've steadfastly refused to cover Kyle Snyder (who not only returned to the US in October of 2006 and turned himself into the military, but also self-checked out again when the military burned him again, returned to Canada and whose February wedding day was put on hold when he was arrested at his home and hauled off in his boxers on the request of the US military), Darrell Anderson who returned from Canada and turned himself in (becoming the first to do so in the summer of 2006), Ivan Brobeck who turned himself in on election day and issued a press release/open letter to the Bully Boy on that day, Joshua Key, Ross Spears, Dean Walcott, Patrick Hart, Corey Glass and countless others.



Today, Australia's Green Left Weekly reviews Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale. The widely applauded book has been applauded domestically primarily by the mainstream media. Exceptions to that include The Progressive and International Socialist Review. The Nation has still had no interest in reviewing the book despite the fact that they not only review books every issue, they dedicate an entire issue to books each year. (We discussed it and Peter Laufer's Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq in "2 Books, 10 Minutes," March 18th -- for any wondering.)



The silence is not only irritating, it's harmful. Last week, Mark Larabee (The Oregonian) reported on a war resister who had gone to Canada, Oregon's James Burmeister who has the full support of his mother behind him. Two things stood out in the article, first you had the fact that his mother was being harassed on the phone by the US military. Remember the lie that the US military just puts self-checkouts' names on a criminal data base and then moves on to other things? That lie has been allowed to grow and be repeated endlessly due to the fact that so few will challenge it. As C.I. noted last Tuesday, the recent arrest of Joseph Smith at his home yet again demonstrates that the US military does not just enter names into a date base.



Larabee's report also included this:



But experts say it's not a good option. Most deserters turn themselves in, said J.E. McNeil, director of the Center on Conscience and War, a nonprofit in Washington, D.C., providing legal advice to U.S. troops.
"Going to Canada is a bad idea," McNeil said. "This is not Vietnam. At that time, you could walk in, set your bags down and stay."
She said a better option is to return to the military. Most who do are discharged under the "other than honorable" classification, she said. Few have been convicted of desertion, she said.



Both C.I. and Trina called that nonsense out. C.I. noted that it takes mere seconds to explain, "I'm not qualified to speak to that. Let me help you find the number of someone who is." Because J.E. McNeil is not in Canada, J.E. McNeil is not working with resisters in Canada on their asylum claims and J.E. McNeil doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. Speaking on a topic other than CO's is probably "a bad idea" for J.E. McNeil. It takes mere seconds to explain you're not qualified to speak, undoing the damage from the ill informed J.E. McNeil takes much longer.



The decision to move to Canada after self-checking out is not made lightly and no one but the person (and their spouses) can make that decision. Having made that decision, a brave one, the last thing anyone needs is a J.E. McNeil saying it's "a bad idea." J.E. McNeil is presented as an "expert" -- though the plural is used in the article, only McNeil is cited. J.E. McNeil is not an expert on war resisters in Canada and the last thing they or anyone else needs are her ill informed remarks.



War resisters who go to Canada know the odds are very unlikely that even some limited form of amnesty will be offered by a future president. Jimmy Carter, when president, refused to offer any amnesty to self-checkouts. He did offer amnesty to men who were going to be drafted but left for Canada before their induction. If Carter didn't offer it when war resisters actually had tremendous support from alternative media, it's doubtful anyone will offer it in the future. That means if you return to see your family (for whatever reason), you are risking arrest. Unless you are willing to endure prison time, moving to Canada means not returning to the US. It is a very difficult decision, it is not "a bad idea."



In this country and within the military, war resisters moving to Canada demonstrate that they take their refusal to serve in an illegal war very seriously. That sends a message (even if J.E. McNeil can't grasp it). It's a very strong message and one that leads to discussions on bases. In addition, it sends a message in Canada. Trina phoned a friend who moved to Canada with her war resister husband during Vietnam and this is what she noted of the impact that war resisters in Canada are currently having:



Today's resisters have made an impact in their own country and by bringing the fight to Canada, they're impacting two countries. As the war continues, the US needs some form of support in the global community to continue. It won't be in the form of soldiers. And Canada's never sent any. But is Canada going to do more than that? That's the issue war resisters are placing on our tables here. And just raising that issue makes it harder for the fool-in-chief in the White House. But if Canada is forced to start granting asylum, that will make things even harder for the US. They are the northern neighbor, bordering the US. They have tremendous power in that regard. War resisters today are forcing Canada to explore using that power. We have a conservative government but I really don't think that matters on this issue. I don't think it matters that our prime minister wants to be close with the White House. The ball is rolling and if it keeps gathering speed, the government's going to be forced to deal with it and that will be a mighty rebuke to the White House and their illegal war. The conversations that are taking place are happening because of the presence of the war resisters. They are really impacting three countries, the US by leaving, Canada by arriving and Iraq by refusing to serve there. That woman, that fool, doesn't know the first thing she is talking about and should shut her mouth.



The fact that their presence forces Canada to do more than say "Well, we didn't send troops so it's not really our issue" is a strong impact and one that the J.E. McNeils of this world never seem to consider. There may be no reason she should. It's certainly not addressed in the domestic media and, since she appears to know so little about war resisters in Canada on her own, she's ignorant of reality.



War resisters are taking brave stands. Some do so with the support of their families, some do so without. (Some have received more support as the illegal war has continued and realities have emerged in this country). You do not honor brave stands by ignoring them or by insisting that they are "a bad idea." We support those who are granted CO status (and have covered them) and we don't see it as an either/or proposition. (We also support those who speak out against the illegal war after serving in Iraq and those who left the service as the illegal war was starting in protest. And, of course, we support Eli Israel who has become the first known US soldier to refuse to serve while stationed in Iraq.) Not being members of the Council for Foreign Relations or any other centrist or centrist-right organization, we have no need to couch our statements or hide our support for war resisters.



If you missed it, The Nation's overly praised article (Cowards' Nation?) avoided speaking to anyone with the War Resisters Support Campaign, they did, however, seek out Vets for Freedom. That would be the group that John Stauber explained last week was nothing but a front group and noting he'd covered this before in 2006:



"Citizen journalists on SourceWatch have been investigating and exposing the many Republican connections and the partisan pro-war political agenda behind Vets for Freedom, a new organization with mysterious funding and a flashy website designed by Campaign Solutions, part of the Donatelli Group. Vets for Freedom's hollow claim of "non-partisanship" took another blow Sunday, June 25, when the Buffalo News published a front page story by Jerry Zremski, their Washington correspondent, linking Vets for Freedom to the Bush White House."
Describing Vets for Freedom as a "pro-war group with deep Republican ties," the Buffalo News revealed that Taylor Gross, who until last year worked as a spokesman for President Bush under White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, is conducting PR work for Veterans for Freedom. Gross attempted to convince the Buffalo News and other papers that two decorated military veterans with the group, Wade Zirkle and David Bellavia, could report cheaply for the newspapers from Iraq while embedded with the US military.
VFF is today a powerful, well-funded pro-war lobby, essentially a front group for Bush policies in Iraq that is often treated with kid gloves by reporters unfamiliar with its funding and connections, journalists who often depict the lobby group as simply another military veterans organization. In fact, the group's sole mission is to lobby on behalf of Bush's global war on terror.



Treated with kid gloves by reporters? And invited to the table by The Nation while the magazine refuses to extend the same invitation to war resisters in Canada (or war resisters underground in this country). Far worthier of praise than the crappy article in The Nation are

Ian Urbina's "Even in Families Sworn to Duty, Misgivings Arise as War Goes On." (New York Times, last Sunday) and Ian Munro's "US military deserters seek refuge in Canada" (Australia's The Age, last Friday). It should also be noted that Joel Bleifuss (In These Times) wrote, in June, about war resisters Leo, Leif and Luke Kamunen, three brothers who self-checked out of the military and that CounterPunch consistently addresses the subject of war resisters and war resistance.



In times of crisis, those who show bravery need to be supported. It's really that basic.