Soldier may be punished for protesting war

Adam Kokesh, a "war-on-terror" veteran, may have his honorable discharge status removed because he attended an anti-war protest wearing his uniform. This reminds me a lot of the professor who was added to the no fly list because he gave a lecture criticizing the president. Remember what the attendant at the airport asked? "Have you been to any protests lately?"

Why is our government punishing our soldiers for speaking out about a war they feel is wrong? Because there is already a growing number of people in this country who have lost confidence in the Iraq war, and they're scared that once the soldiers start speaking out they'll have to play by the rules. From monitoring their blogging to taking away their benefits, the American government is prosecuting it's soldiers for not wanting to be a witness to a great crime.

The Army Regulates Blogging

According to Wired, soldiers must now have personal e-mails and blogs run by an officer before posting. While I understand the need for military secrecy when it comes to things like positions and plans, this rule is set up to fail. Eventually, if it hasn't already happened, officers will stop approving blogs that are critical of the war, with the explanation that it'll embolden the enemy (which the Bush administration already holds to be true). The main problem I have with this blogging regulation is that it'll silence the voices of our soldiers, making the war farther away from Americans than it currently is.

When you watch the mainstream media, you'll notice that the most frivolous news usually gets the most attention. For example, CNN going commercial free for the death of Anna Nicole Smith. Little if any attention is paid to Afghanistan or Iraq. This is mostly because our war-mongering leaders know that they can get away with much more if the general public is oblivious to what's really happening; if they're living behind pretty curtains. Silencing soldier bloggers is along the same lines; as long as people don't know what the soldiers are really feeling, there will be no larger outcry for a change.

Sulak Sivaraksa's "Tasks for Modern Buddhists"

This excerpt is from Sulak Sivaraksa's 1976 lecture at the World Fellowship of Buddhists meeting in Thailand.

Is it too much for us Buddhists to appeal for:

1. The return to the traditional culture and spiritual values, for the elimination of those foreign elements which can cause discord and hatred among the people and can destroy the beauty of our traditions and customs.

2. An educational system that provides equal opportunities to every citizen, rich and poor, city dwellers and country people.

3. An economic policy that does not create gaps between people. There should be a policy which prevents the minority becoming richer and richer, while taking away the chances for a decent living from the majority. The Government should refrain from importing luxurious items for the sake of the consumption of the rich minority, forbid the transferring of money by the rich to deposit in foreign banks outside the country - not to mention the rich buying property abroad!

4. The re-organization of the armed forces, to educate soldiers to become friends of the villagers, not to oppress and terrorize them. The ignorance and ill-behavior of the soldiers can lead to more opposition that is violent from among the population.

5. The reform of life in the countryside. Efforts should be made to help farmers, small merchants and others to exercise their professions and organize themselves in order to produce better and to sell their products, and to encourage and protect people who are working to help in the work of rural development.

6. Attention to miserable conditions in the slum areas. Land should be distributed to those in the slums who would like to go and settle in the rural areas in order to have a better life. Food and transportation should be provided to those who wish to participate in such a programme.

7. A neutral and independent policy towards the conflicting powers to maintain a truly independent stand, non-aligned, trying to avoid involvement in any international conflicts in order to preserve peace.

8. A sensible and intelligent policy towards the armed opposition movement. Violent confrontation should be avoided. Sincere and direct contact with the leaders of the movement should be made immediately. Try to listen to every point of criticism and prove to the people by action that points being made by them can be realized in more peaceful ways in cooperation with them.

I thought that piece was rather interesting. One point that I want to highlight is number 4. "...to educate soldiers to become friends of the villagers, not to oppress... . The ignorance and ill-behavior of the soldiers can lead to more opposition that is violent from among the population."

When I read that, I immediately thought of Afghanistan and Iraq. I can't even begin to count how many instances I've heard, videos I've seen, of our troops treating the citizens of those countries disgustingly. And Sivaraksa is right; ill-behavior can and probably will lead to even more violence.

Look at it this way: If America were invaded in the name of "liberation", and the invading nation's troops treated us like objects instead of people, would you still love them? I'd bet that most people wouldn't. We'd be angry and fight back.

69%...

of Americans think things are going badly in Iraq.

I'm not surprised at that, but I am surprised that people are surprised the number is that high.

Link: Think Progress

Iraqi Compensation & Contracters

MWC News recently published an article highlighting compensation paid to the families of killed Iraqis. According to the Human Rights Watch, only around a third of victim's families have been compensated. What I really want to talk about though are the contractors.

It seems that if an Iraqi is killed by a contractor, their family will not receive compensation since that contractor isn't part of the military:

"Human Rights Watch is also concerned by the air of impunity surrounding civilian contractors employed by the US government. Although the claims process covers Department of Defense employees, claims against contractors are denied out of hand on the grounds that they 'are not government employees.'

'It's shocking that the US government doesn't compensate the deaths of civilians caused by their hired guns,' Garlasco said. 'Contractors operating under the US military umbrella, as well as soldiers, should be held accountable when they kill Iraqi civilians without any justification.'"

The problem with contractors is precisely that they aren't "government employees". They don't have the same rules. Another problem is that they cost exorbitant amounts of money.

There's a wonderful documentary directed by Robert Greenwald called Iraq for Sale, which I highly recommend.

"Terror"

The UK has recently decided to stop using the phase "War on Terror", for fear that terrorists will feel that they're part of something larger. I think there's a bigger problem surrounding the word though.

At least in the U.S., the word terror has become the word of choice for officials hoping to get their way. If there's a bill that would otherwise never be passed, just add "terrorism" to it and it's done. The Bush Administration is using fear-mongering to pass laws that do away with our freedom and contradict the constitution.

Thus, it's unlikely that America will ever go the same way as the UK in this matter.