Skip to main content

The Bergdahl case raises a number of questions about the rights of military personnel. What can members of the military do when they face a crisis of conscience? How should laws and regulations be changed?

As a volunteer with the GI Rights Hotline (www.girightshotline.org), it's important to remember that the US military, unfortunately, does not yet recognize selective conscientious objection. As a result, as pierre9045 pointed out in a useful diary yesterday, members of the military who face crises of conscience are still caught in a Catch-22.

GI Rights volunteer and lawyer James Branum (who is a colleague of mine on the GI Rights Hotline) was interviewed on Democracy Now yesterday about these issues regarding Bergdahl.

Currently, when someone signs up for a branch of the US military, they sign a form saying they are not a conscientious objector. So, for a member of the military to successfully claim conscientious objection, they need to first prove that their beliefs about war have changed since they signed up, and then they have to prove that since signing up, they have become morally, ethically, or religiously against participating in all war. I could say a lot more about the philosophical and procedural challenges of meeting this definition, but I'll spare you that for now.

This definition obviously limits the legal options available to those who develop conscientious objections to the particular war(s) the country is fighting but are not necessarily opposed to all wars. Sgt. Bergdahl, from what I've heard, might have been in this situation. Also, though the GI Rights Hotline receives tens of thousands of calls every year, many members of the military still don't know about conscientious objection as an option and don't know there is free, confidential help available from GI Rights counselors about a range of discharge options.

It would be an important human rights advance to push the military, the Congress, and/or the courts to recognize the rights of selective conscientious objectors. This was one of the conclusions of the Truth Commission on Conscience in War, as written about in a diary by diamondheart a couple of years ago (see also links to the commission itself, and the Commission's Final Report (pdf)). Most religions admit that conscientious objection to all wars is at least possible under their theology, but almost all religions recognize, at a minimum, that not all wars are just, and thus in theory should be willing to promote the right to selective objection. The recognition of this right would also help spur GI resistance and thus perform as a check on Executive power from below, especially to wars considered particularly unjust. 

Even better would be to recognize the right of anyone to quit their jobs and to leave the military without having to prove they are doing it for a particular reason of conscience. After all, the 13th Amendment abolished "involuntary servitude" (unfortunately with the criminality "loophole" tacked on, but that's another topic for another time). To force people to stay in the military under pain of military criminal prosecution is to enforce a condition of involuntary servitude and is one of the factors that gives the lie to the advertised "all volunteer" force. 

Originally posted to samdiener on Thu Jun 05, 2014 at 08:08 AM PDT.

Also republished by Group W: Resisting War.

Poll

How should the US military handle crises of conscience?

47%8 votes
11%2 votes
41%7 votes

| 17 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site