The Criminalization of Peace
by Patricia deVarennes
I have settled for posting photos the past couple of weeks. It wasn't that I had nothing to say, it's that I am having difficulty understanding why it needs to be said...
Our military and our government actually criminalize peace. Think about that for a moment. Members of the armed forces who object to killing and refuse to participate are branded criminals. We have an old school mentality that says if you are a member of the "armed forces" you are a soldier, a.k.a. a warrior. Perhaps that was more true in times past. There was less infrastructure, less technology, and more soldier to soldier combat.
Today, thousands of members of the armed forces are designated by the military complex as "noncombatants". These include those who provide support services to their branch of the military, such as communications services, in addition to medical personnel and chaplains. If one of these “soldiers” refuses to kill, although designated as a noncombatant, he or she is subject to criminal conviction and the very real stigma of "dishonorable discharge". The spectre of imprisonment overshadows each thought of dissent.
Conscientious objector applications can be denied. The applicant is subject to criminal conviction and punishment if he or she is rash enough to refuse to participate in a war, even a war he or she believes to be illegal, until Conscientious Objector status is granted. If that status is denied, they have no recourse.
Why is this? Some would say that if you let one "soldier" get away with thinking he or she can just refuse to fight, others would get that same notion and by god then what would you do? What indeed? The governmental and military minds reel at the thought that thousands of soldiers could conceivably sit on their desert cammo behinds and refuse to go to a war they consider unjust and illegal.
Cries of "what would have happened in World War II if they had done that?" rally everyone back to Old Glory once again. But this is not WWII. Start comparing Iraq to Vietnam, and the blustering begins anew. This is not Vietnam. Fair enough. I give you that it's not Vietnam if you give me that it's not WWII. (Vietnam was in the jungle and our government was afraid that the Commies were coming to take away our freedom of speech, our freedom of dissent, our freedom of the press, our civil rights...and we don't have to worry about the bad old Communists coming to get us any more. We decided to legislate away our own freedoms. Oh, but I digress...)
The thought that soldiers who have been to combat and killed people are guilty of criminal offenses because they have defining moments in which they become convinced that it's wrong and they won't do it any more is INSANE.
HELLO!??? Is anyone listening to them? They are saying (for those of you who need translators) that THEY DON'T WANT TO KILL PEOPLE. Why is this a crime?
I have settled for posting photos the past couple of weeks. It wasn't that I had nothing to say, it's that I am having difficulty understanding why it needs to be said...
Our military and our government actually criminalize peace. Think about that for a moment. Members of the armed forces who object to killing and refuse to participate are branded criminals. We have an old school mentality that says if you are a member of the "armed forces" you are a soldier, a.k.a. a warrior. Perhaps that was more true in times past. There was less infrastructure, less technology, and more soldier to soldier combat.
Today, thousands of members of the armed forces are designated by the military complex as "noncombatants". These include those who provide support services to their branch of the military, such as communications services, in addition to medical personnel and chaplains. If one of these “soldiers” refuses to kill, although designated as a noncombatant, he or she is subject to criminal conviction and the very real stigma of "dishonorable discharge". The spectre of imprisonment overshadows each thought of dissent.
Conscientious objector applications can be denied. The applicant is subject to criminal conviction and punishment if he or she is rash enough to refuse to participate in a war, even a war he or she believes to be illegal, until Conscientious Objector status is granted. If that status is denied, they have no recourse.
Why is this? Some would say that if you let one "soldier" get away with thinking he or she can just refuse to fight, others would get that same notion and by god then what would you do? What indeed? The governmental and military minds reel at the thought that thousands of soldiers could conceivably sit on their desert cammo behinds and refuse to go to a war they consider unjust and illegal.
Cries of "what would have happened in World War II if they had done that?" rally everyone back to Old Glory once again. But this is not WWII. Start comparing Iraq to Vietnam, and the blustering begins anew. This is not Vietnam. Fair enough. I give you that it's not Vietnam if you give me that it's not WWII. (Vietnam was in the jungle and our government was afraid that the Commies were coming to take away our freedom of speech, our freedom of dissent, our freedom of the press, our civil rights...and we don't have to worry about the bad old Communists coming to get us any more. We decided to legislate away our own freedoms. Oh, but I digress...)
The thought that soldiers who have been to combat and killed people are guilty of criminal offenses because they have defining moments in which they become convinced that it's wrong and they won't do it any more is INSANE.
HELLO!??? Is anyone listening to them? They are saying (for those of you who need translators) that THEY DON'T WANT TO KILL PEOPLE. Why is this a crime?
posted by Pat deV | 10:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home