Category: svhaitsma

DissidentVoice

By Susan Van Haitsma

Not one more death. Not one more dollar.

Dollars and death are connected in more ways than one. The old adage claims that death and taxes are the only certainties in life, but it is the connection between taxes and death that is the real certainty.

The grinding machinery of war needs fuel: soldiers and money. A majority of Americans indicate they want the machine to stop. Parents and students, veterans and military families are working together to withhold human resources from the war. Cindy Sheehan has movingly expressed the ways that one death has been one too many.

But what happens when the majority of Americans want war to stop, and the money to wage it keeps flowing in? Larger bonuses are used to lure enlistees, and more military services are performed by expensive contract labor. The machine rolls on.

What happens when wage earners get together and withhold their financial resources from the war? The amount of money diverted from death to life may be small in the face of the huge US military budget, but the challenge to the system is great. Somehow, when someone says, “Not with my money,” and backs it up with the open civil disobedience of war tax refusal, eyes open wider. “You can do that?” Yes, we can and do. WWII conscientious objector and civil rights Freedom Rider, Wally Nelson, carried his well-used sign, “Haven’t paid taxes since 1948,” up through his last demonstration at age 93. “Say yes to no,” he would say with a smile.

Wally Nelson’s widow, activist and writer, Juanita Nelson, was not the only octogenarian among the war tax resisters who met recently in Brooklyn, NY for a conference of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee (NWTRCC), a network of groups and individuals around the USA. Nor was Lincoln Rice of the Milwaukee Catholic Worker the only attendee in his 20’s. But, as we stretched ourselves into a human timeline according to the decade during which we began war tax refusal, the largest groupings were in the middle decades of the 1970’s and ‘80’s.

War tax resistance reached its peak of activity during the Indochina War, with several hundred thousand phone tax resisters and some 20,000 income tax resisters openly redirecting some or all of their federal taxes. A number of well-known figures publicly joined the ranks of war tax refusers, including Joan Baez in 1964 and a group of over 500 writers and editors by 1967. Long-time activist Brad Lyttle, on hand from Chicago for the recent Brooklyn conference, was the first coordinator of National War Tax Resistance (WTR) when it was formally launched in December, 1969 during a New York City press conference that included Allen Ginsberg and Pete
Seeger.

By 1972 there were 192 local WTR chapters across the country.

In 1975, WTR was laid down, and NWTRCC was formed seven years later in response to the growing military budget of the Reagan era. Currently, NWTRCC is comprised of some 40 affiliate groups with area contacts in as many states.

Most war tax resisters consider themselves conscientious objectors. One of Juanita and Wally Nelson’s public statements about their resistance read, “We hope our actions have some effect. But, in any case, simply in order to justify our humanity, we must persist in our attempt to make action serve belief.” Conscientious objection invites a paradox that has been expressed eloquently by soldiers-turned-conscientious objectors like Camilo Mejia and Kevin Benderman; taking an intensely personal, often lonely stand based on one’s conscience makes one feel more deeply connected to all humanity.

Connection with one another is an important aspect of the war tax resistance movement. Peter Goldberger, long-time lawyer advocate for war tax resisters, spoke during the Brooklyn conference to stress the value of the “big tent” of NWTRCC. He believes that the openness and transparency of a shared public witness offers a protective force. War tax resisters tend to be willing to discuss publicly what our society tends to consider private matters: personal income and expenses, financial assets, and our deepest moral and ethical beliefs about life and death.

One focus of the recent NWTRCC gathering involved outreach to young people. A young resister described the anxiety she felt early on about how she would plan for the next 40 to 50 years of life as a war tax resister. She found the prospect rather daunting. Older war tax resisters responded reassuringly that we can take things only one step at a time. Some resisters take the opportunity to reevaluate their situation every year, and many revise their method of refusal over time. In fact, many war tax resisters feel that one of the lessons learned is to live more by faith, trusting that each day’s needs will be met. It is a lesson that contradicts the value placed in this country on long-term personal security and financial investment.

War tax resisters have become active in the counter-recruitment movement. Juanita Nelson, who is invited into school classrooms, counsels us to be sure to talk to students about our war tax resistance. Even for students who are not yet confronted with paying taxes, she believes it is important to plant the seeds of resistance. “In a way, we cheat them if we don’t talk about it!” she says.

A joint effort of the Fellowship of Reconciliation and the Center on Conscience & War is the “I Will Not Kill” campaign, which educates young people about the concept of conscientious objection. The http://www.iwillnotkill.org web site features inspiring photographs of young people holding their I Will Not Kill pledge cards. At the close of the NWTRCC conference, we gathered for a photograph of our own: all ages standing behind a banner that read, “We Will Not Kill, And We Will Not Pay for Killing.” We stood under a tent that could grow big enough to hold every taxpayer whose dollars were not meant for death.

Van Haitsma is active with Nonmilitary Options for Youth and Austin Conscientious Objectors to Military Taxation, a NWTRCC affiliate (www.nwtrcc.org)

By Susan Van Haitsma

Every village has its cemetery, its collection of spirit inhabitants who invoke memories of village history and remind the living that death and remembrance of the dead are essential to the natural order of things in human society. But cemeteries usually are found on the edges of town, away from the goings-on of daily life.

The memorials of carefully arranged and named crosses, stars of David and crescents comprising ‘Arlington South’ in Camps Casey I and II are not relegated to the edges, but instead form the heart of the community that has sprung up near Crawford, Texas this month. Memorial crosses hug the three original tents of Camp Casey I and line the road leading to the camp. The field of crosses at Camp Casey II adjoins the large community tent and is the first thing visitors encounter as they approach from the road. In a reversal of the natural order of things, the dead represented by these memorials are society’s youngest adults. The doctrine of pre-emptive war forces members of a society to do the unthinkable: to sacrifice the lives of their young to protect their own.

After her address at Camp Casey II on Saturday, Cindy Sheehan stepped into the cheering audience to greet supporters. As she shook my partner’s hand, she studied the image on his T-shirt: a line of people with arms linked and the message, “Guns don’t protect people … people do.” She said, thoughtfully, “I like your shirt.”

One of the many gifts Cindy Sheehan and her energetic supporters have given the country this August is a living, breathing example of what an alternative to war looks like. It’s an alternative led and shaped by women with a message focused on children. Behind the stage under the big tent of Camp Casey II, the handmade cloth banner spanning exactly the width of the tent states in bold, pink, block letters: MOTHERS SAY NO TO WAR. During the rally on Saturday, a long banner held by about 25 persons in rotating crews in front of the crosses read in bold, blue letters: SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME ALIVE. Many smaller signs displayed around the camp contained similar messages: “Hands off God’s hildren.” “Greed is not a lesson for our children.” “War leaves all children behind.”

The village that has grown at Camp Casey contains the essential elements of what is life-giving and life-sustaining: food, water, shelter, clothing (mostly T-shirts), health care, education, communications systems, spiritual direction, visual art, music and dance. It’s all there, sprouting from the earth, brought into being by hundreds of people pooling talents developed in their own communities around the country. People have come with children and pets, often staying longer than intended. “It felt so much like family, I couldn’t bear to leave,” said a friend who spent the night in her car with her daughter so they could stay an extra day.

The remarkable kitchen at Camp Casey II has served thousands of wholesome, delicious meals made by volunteers with donations of food. Marveling at the lunch served one weekday, a Codepink volunteer said, “I eat better here than I do at home!” Bottled water is delivered by the caseload and regular announcements remind older visitors especially to drink at least one bottle an hour during the heat of the day. A medical tent has been staffed with volunteer professionals. Trained counselors also have been available. A special tent has served as a chapel, hung with symbols representing a variety of faith traditions. Tables and chairs were rented to accommodate the crowds under the large tent, and on Saturday, every table contained a vase of fresh flowers.

This village has embraced all ages and abilities. Chartered busloads arriving at the camp from Houston, Austin, Dallas and San Antonio on Saturday were greeted and cheered. Calls were frequently made from the stage requesting volunteers for various camp tasks, and people jumped up, ready to be of service. At one point, overflow volunteers who answered the call for an ice brigade formed a line behind the ice handlers and applauded.

Visitors listened to speakers, read materials and engaged in discussion. Nonviolence training was held. Members of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) described experiences in Iraq that led them to speak out against the invasion and occupation. Said one young veteran from the Camp Casey stage as he surveyed Saturday’s crowd, “This is the single largest patriotic gathering I’ve seen in my life.”

If President Bush really wants freedom, democracy and compassion to spread around the world, he would do well to observe the phenomenon just outside his gate. Noble causes require noble means. The Camp Casey community has been characterized by good organization, flexibility, hospitality and an abiding sense of care.

At dusk on Saturday, taps were played in the field of crosses at Camp Casey II. Earlier, Joan Baez had sung ‘The Ballad of Joe Hill’, concluding with the line, “I never died, said he.” The large canvas portrait of Casey Sheehan waved in the wind. From a field of crosses grew a village filled with life that has become its own answer to war. Guns don’t protect people … people do.

—-

Susan Van Haitsma is active with Nonmilitary Options for Youth in Austin, Texas

By Susan Van Haitsma

I always read with interest the columns of UT classics professor, Thomas Palaima. He and I have visited together concerning issues related to his course on war and violence studies. I appreciate his insight and experience.

Palaima’s American-Statesman commentary, “A grieving mother asks an impossible question,” (8-23-05) states that Gold Star mother, Cindy Sheehan and the hundreds of supporters who have traveled to Crawford, Texas to join her, are asking a question which “has no factual answer.” Palaima suggests that families of soldiers killed in Iraq must deal with their grief as all of us must when confronted by “death and severe trauma” in our lives. Palaima recounts several personal brushes with death in the context of accidents that he has survived, reminding us that there appear to be no satisfactory reasons why, in accidents, some die and others are spared.

But, soldiers who are killed in war do not die as a result of an accident. Most of the killing that is done in war is neither unexpected nor unintentional. The decision by US government leaders to invade and occupy Iraq involved certain knowledge that US soldiers and Iraqi civilians would be killed. US government leaders did not know how many persons would be killed or what their names would be, but they chose instruments of death as their method and knew that death would result. Somehow, leaders decided that the deadly human consequences would be worth the imagined gains of their cause. Sheehan and thousands of other ordinary Americans are asking President Bush and his administration to explain their cause and name those gains. If there are no factual answers to this straightforward question, US leaders are not leading.

Even if one thinks of the deaths of Iraqi civilians and US soldiers in Iraq as unfortunate accidents, what does that say about our culture of life? Most accidents assume a calculated risk – a gamble. Is a culture of life furthered by deciding that some lives are expendable? By willingly wagering the lives of the youngest adults in the US and the lives of young and old in Iraq, praying that certain family members and friends are not killed or injured, physically or mentally, whose lives are being traded for whose? What parents would give the lives of their children to protect their own?

As Sheehan has said many times, her son, Casey, was not ‘lost’ in war, he was killed. Killing does not happen accidentally. I appreciate the way she has often stated that her son was an “indispensable part” of her family. Love for our children is something we know deeply; it is the fiercest love of all. Our children are indispensable parts of our families and our larger communities. Why would we allow our 14 – 18 year-olds to be wooed by military recruiters? Why would we decide that our youngest adults should bear the brunt of war?

We would do well to listen closely to soldiers who are returning from Iraq. During the annual Veterans for Peace convention held August 4 –7 in Dallas, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) shared powerful testimony of their experiences in Iraq and their reasons for calling for withdrawal of troops. Said one member of IVAW from the stage during a plenary session, “When people tell me they are proud of what I did in Iraq, I say, “Well, I’m not. You don’t even know what I did over there.’”

Iraq war veteran and conscientious objector, Camilo Mejia, spoke candidly about the prison term he served for desertion when he refused to return to Iraq because of human rights violations he witnessed. He reported receiving support from other soldiers for his stand against the war, yet warned against the “culture of silence” within the military that discourages truth-telling about the costs of war.

From prison and since his release last February, Mejia has been an eloquent spokesperson for the rights of conscience. “By putting my weapon down,” he says, “ I chose to reassert myself as a human being.” He has helped mobilize support for other GI resisters, including Army Sgt. Kevin Benderman, who has recently begun a 15-month prison sentence for refusing to serve a second tour of duty in Iraq. Amnesty International has adopted Benderman as a prisoner of conscience.

Palaima suggests there is no human plan that explains why persons are killed in war. Veterans and family members of soldiers killed in Iraq are speaking out and suggesting otherwise.

Susan Van Haitsma is active with Nonmilitary Options for Youth and is an associate member of Veterans for Peace

By Susan Van Haitsma

Global Resistance Network / Dissident Voice

In the wake of the London bombings, reporters and commentators have referred to the deaths of innocents and have speculated about unstated motives of the unknown perpetrators. Reading these commentaries, I wonder who is guilty, who is innocent, and whether it is helpful to discuss the bombings using these dichotomies.

An Austin American-Statesman editorial responding to the bombings quoted President Bush’s statement, “The contrast couldn’t be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill, those who’ve got such evil in their hearts that they will take the lives of innocent folks.”

News of the London attacks made headlines around the world and most victims have been identified. On the same day as the attacks and possibly every day for the last fifteen years, civilians have been killed in Iraq as a result of bombing, embargo, invasion and occupation. News accounts of Iraqi civilian deaths are underreported in the US media, and victims rarely are named. Disproportionate numbers of the dead have been children.

The American-Statesman editorial refers to the London bombing perpetrators via typographic error as “al terrorists” and claims “what the terrorist leaders want is the destruction of the Western way of life. Nothing less.” How do journalists know this? Is it certain that terrorist “leaders” planned the London bombings? And how would one define the “Western way
of life?”

The editorial not only ascribes motives but also predicts future strategies of an organization assumed responsible for the London bombings. “If all foreign troops left Iraq today, al Qaeda would make other demands.” Who actually speaks for al Qaeda, what demands are made and to whom are the demands directed?

The US and Britain vow to not appease terrorists who induce fear and attempt to pressure governments by killing civilians. Yet, for more than a decade before the invasion and occupation, Iraqi civilians were the objects of brutal economic sanctions and systematic bombing conducted by US and British forces — policies designed to pressure Iraqi leaders to accede to demands that kept changing. If one defines terrorism as targeting civilians through secretly planned and coordinated acts of violent retaliation with goals that are often unclear, then methods used by terrorists and methods used in the war against terror become indistinguishable.

Columnist Thomas Friedman calls Muslim leaders to account for the London bombings even while he states there is “no obvious target to retaliate against.” At the same time that Friedman warns the West about the dangers of “making every Muslim in its midst guilty until proven innocent,” he blames Muslims and suggests that an appropriate response to terrorism is to find something we can punch in the face,” as the US did in Afghanistan.

When US and British leaders know beyond doubt that bombing campaigns will kill civilians, where is the line between those who care about human rights and those who kill? Maintaining a distinction between civilians as targets and civilians as collateral damage is not possible. President Bush’s “contrast” between human beings who value life and those who plan death blurs to gray.

In a democratic society, who is responsible for government policies? In an undemocratic institution such as the US military, who is responsible for the actions of individual soldiers? As a US citizen, I theoretically help determine US policy. If policies have included killing civilians, am I guilty? Is a soldier who has killed civilians under orders innocent? If soldiers who kill are beset with post-traumatic stress, what does guilt or innocence mean then?

Friedman describes the British as “resilient, determined people.” I have heard the same words used to describe Iraqis. While I admire these attributes, I also want to stop and remember every human being who is killed as a result of terrorism and war. Whether civilians, soldiers or suicide bombers, I’d like to know their names, ages and something about the universe of possibility that is lost with each life that is stolen.

Though it may seem like a brave response, we cannot simply mourn and move on. Families of victims are not back to normal within a couple of days, and even if it is not acknowledged, neither are societies. I wonder how long war and terrorism could continue if we were able to set aside labels of guilt and innocence and learn the intentions and the hearts of every victim and perpetrator.