June 15th was when the honorably discharged Sgt. Chiroux was supposed to report to deploy to Iraq but, as he stated he would May 15th, Chiroux refused to do so, he took a stand against the illegal war. In 2006, a top ten (circulation wise) daily newspaper, reporting on war resistance, felt the need to treat war resister as though it were a term that had just sprung up when it's roots go far back into this country's history.
But history isn't a major or even a minor required for a degree in journalism. So a great deal just falls away and that's apparent with each report on war resisters today.
Andrew Johnson granted amnesty to "deserters." It was December 25, 1968 and the amnesty applied to all who fought on the Confederate side of the Civil War. It was thought that, for the country, even those who had fought against it should be given amnesty. In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt would grant amnesty to those who were found guilty of either draft evasion or espionage during WWI. Harry S. Truman would grant four amnesties while in office -- for those who evaded the draft during WWII or deserted as well as those with records prior to military service. Gerald Ford would create a program where "draft dodgers" and "deserters" could go through a process that would -- if they met the criteria -- wipe the slate clean. Jimmy Carter would follow with amnesty for all "draft dodgers."
The Civil War, WWI, WWII, Vietnam. Amnesty isn't uncommon and one could argue it followed all of the US' 'big' wars. Ted Kennedy, who's been in the Senate long enough to see two major illegal wars, would say as Vietnam was thought to be winding down (it was not winding down in 1972, despite Kennedy's assurances and beliefs otherwise) that the nation needed to heal and that part of the healing had to include some form of amnesty. Always the politician, Kennedy would use the rhetorical (and dualistic) dialogue while presenting the issue, the either/or. Some say they must always be punished, some say amnesty must be "offered to those who were right about the war before the rest of us".
Those who have refused to take part in the illegal Iraq War were right when the White House was wrong. The man who lied the world into an illegal war will be drawing the curtain in a little over half-a-year from now. It started in his first term and will continue after his second term ends. In January 2009, someone else will operate out of the Oval Office.
And what are the candidates offering? And what are politicians in Congress pushing?
The GOP and Democratic presidential candidates, like their parties 'leadership' in Congress, seem unable to state clearly and unambiguously that it is time to end the illegal war and withdraw ALL US troops. Vietnam was owned by LBJ and Tricky Dick and, if it comes down to one of the two major parties occupying the White House next year, it's very likely that co-ownership will again be granted to two presidents.
How did we get here and how do we get out of it?
One way is knowing your history. Knowing what is possible because it's already been done once. And a president isn't the only one who can grant amnesty, the US Congress can as well. But how can the latter support an amnesty when it's difficult to get even one member of Congress to speak out in support of Matthis Chiroux despite his haunting Congress for over a month and receiving private messages of support? Where is the backbone?
Or do they all plan to pull a Teddy Kennedy and pretend that a group was "right about the war before the rest of us" and that "the rest of us" is only just now aware of how illegal the Iraq War is?
Last week, a Washington Post-ABC poll found that 34% of respondents feel the Iraq War "was worth fighting" and 63% feel it was not worth fighting. Are the Democrats waiting for the percentage of those opposed to reach 99% or possibly 100%?
With 63% saying it was not worth it, Congress still decided to open up the public piggy bank and give Bully Boy every penny he wants to continue the illegal war (as well as the war in Afghanistan). And they didn't just fork over our tax dollars (present and future), they also left out any talk of withdrawal (actual withdrawal dates or toothless, non-binding measures).
You might have thought Panhandle Media would have a field day with that topic, dashing off fiery editorials and columns, filling the broadcast hours decrying and discussing Congressional Democrats latest sell-out on the Iraq War. Instead, the strongest statement against the funding came from Cindy Sheehan's campaign which noted, "In January 2007, the newly gaveled Speaker [Nancy Pelosi] promised that her House would not give George Bush any more blank checks for funding without "oversight, standards or conditions." United for Peace & Justice attempted to find an upside when there was none: "This, of course, is not the outcome we would have liked. However, it is worth noting that 155 members of the House voted against the supplemental funding bill. That is the largest number of "no" votes on war funding so far." No, UPFJ, the glass isn't half-full, it's shattered and, with 435 members of Congress, 155 is a pitiful number.
In terms of voting, of your vote, you should be paying attention to the fact that it is presidential candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr who are calling for an end to the illegal war along with presumed Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney. Their campaigns get by on spit and a shoe string while still inspiring people around the country with a message and issues, not the big bucks from the defense industry. They battle media blackouts, they battle underhanded tactics from the two main parties and they battle for ballot access. We're not sure which is more shocking -- all three tactics go against what is supposed to take place in a democracy.
Were Jimmy Carter not so in the tank for the Democratic Party, we'd suggest that he try monitoring elections in the US.
How can a voter make an informed decision when access to candidate information is regularly denied? How can a voter confidently mark a ballot when candidates have to struggle and fight to even get listed on the ballot?
On the information issue, where is today's Liberation News Service? No fair mentioning Barack propaganda arms. Liberation News Service was not in the habit of air brushing the blemishes from War Hawk politicians. If you're not familiar with them, we'd suggest you ignore Wikipedia (which Jim pulled up and began reading from to howls of laughter from Elaine and C.I. who couldn't believe such a "dumb ass" article could be written and point out that the Liberation News Service had headquarters in DC, that is shared a town house with Insurgent Printing and Graphics as well as The Washington Free Press but "typical, that it would be turned into yet another New York story"). [C.I. notes that in the sixties, Liberation News Service was also produced in Chicago and Berkeley but "as of the start of 1968, it didn't even have a 'press' to print on in New York or any equipment rented from Western Union, so it took a real idiot to write that Wiki-article and claim it was NYC based at the start." For more laughs, Elaine asked Jim to see if Wiki had an article on the Underground Press Syndicate. It did. The author of which foolishly believes UPS was domestic plus Canada when, in fact, it was a worldwide service in Europe as well as Australia. Ah, Crap-a-pedia, if we couldn't laugh at you, the world would be a less joyful place.]
During Vietnam, you had alternative weeklies, also known as underground weeklies, which addressed all the things The Nation, The New Republic, et al, wouldn't about the war, about the peace movement, etc. [Examples would include, but are not limited to, Berkeley Barb, The Seed, Nola Express, East Village Other, Fifth Estate, Inner-City Voice, The Great Speckled Bird, The Los Angeles Free Press, The Avatar and Berkeley Tribe.] Where is today's UPS or LNS?
"You have the internet!" we can hear some American displeased over the 2004 election and moving to Canada insisting. (Yeah, you know who we mean.) Yes, Dancing With Fools, you do. And back then, you had an alternative weekly in most major cities across the country. The point of LNS specifically (UPS, again, had an international reach) was to amplify the audience. So one webpage doesn't mean a thing. It's the same as one weekly. During Vietnam, people were smart enough to grasp the importance of amplification.
They've got amplification -- the people who want the Iraq War to continue. They've got a media megaphone and they appear to have both major political parties in this country in their pocket. The dominant message of the mainstream media is that the war should continue. All this time later, that's still the message with "henny pennies" (to flip Donald Rumsfeld back on them) naysayers insisting doom and gloom if the US leaves Iraq. (Ignoring the doom and gloom the US has brought and continues to bring to the area.) In what passes for the US 'alternative' media, the dominant message is that the war is bad (illegal, as Billy Joel once found of honesty, is such a lonely word, apparently) and you need to go vote for Barack but, like Vitameatavegamin, he's so tasty!
In a functioning democracy, these would not be your press choices.
But you live with what you're willing to accept and until the American people are willing to call out the illegal war loudly and clearly and to call out All Things Media Big and Small, you get what you accept.