American Soldiers Execute Handcuffed Minors in Afghanistan

On December 26, 2009, U.S. soldiers executed nine innocent young men during a night raid in Kunar Province, Afghanistan. All nine, ages 11-17, were shot either in the head or chest from close range after being detained and handcuffed. Eight were students in a local school, one was a visiting shepherd boy, and a tenth civilian victim, a teenage farmer, was shot and killed running out of his neighboring home.

From Jerome Starkey of The Scotsman: "Originally, NATO said the...victims were part of a terrorist cell. Yesterday, it admitted: 'Ultimately, we did determine it to be a civilian casualty incident.'"

The military uses such cold, lifeless terminology. Soldiers break into a house in the middle of the night, murder eight family members in cold blood, plus a couple of bonus kills, and it gets benignly filed away under "civilian casualty incident." Oops, shucks. Better luck next time. This "incident" capped off a two-week total of 63 confirmed civilian deaths at the hands of the American military.

Dave Lindorff comments that, "Under the Geneva Conventions, it is a war crime to execute a captive.... It is a war crime to kill children under the age of 15...." Nine of the victims were captive, and three were under 15 years old. So far, the Pentagon and the Defense Department have kept silent on the identities of the soldiers involved or the existence of any investigation.

This story is but one particularly gruesome example of everyday life for the Afghan population terrorized by the American occupation. The drone strikes and night raids continue to escalate, for what meaningful purpose is difficult to determine. War turns fine young men into monsters, murderers, and victims. It's time for the U.S. military to come home before another life is wasted on the alter of empire.

Iraqi Christians Persecuted "on a biblical scale" Since Invasion

Today on the LewRockwell.com Blog, Christopher Manion links to a Catholic Online article illustrating the alarming persecution of Iraqi Christians since the U.S. invasion in 2003.

The article by Sonja Corbitt states that, "Iraqi Christians are being hunted, murdered and forced to flee – persecuted on a biblical scale in Iraq's religious civil war." With the Islamic government installed in Iraq by the U.S. in 2005, Christians have faced a level of violent persecution not experienced for over 150 years. Although Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly a cruel tyrant, his government was largely secular and Christians were able to worship with relative equality to Muslims. Corbitt explains that is now far from the case:

"But the invasion and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that removed Saddam Hussein have created political instability and an authority vacuum that has allowed a jihadist and supremacist power insurgence that preys on Christians in their midst with increasing brutality and boldness. In Iraq, half of the nation´s prewar 700,000 Christians have now fled the country since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Hundreds of thousands have been tortured and martyred."

What makes the Iraqi Christians' plight all the more bitter is that one of, if not the, major base of political support for the wars comes from American Christians. Manion highlights this vile hypocrisy in his blog post: "George Bush projected himself as the most publicly Christian president in our history. Yet his war on Iraq has virtually destroyed Christianity in that country."

In my experience (being virtually surrounded by Christian conservatives), the U.S. military and its wars are institutions held most dear by American Christians; perhaps even ahead of the Church itself. While I'd bet that most American Christians are blithely ignorant of their brothers' and sisters' tribulations in Iraq, I don't have much confidence that the knowledge thereof would instigate much change in their views of the wars.

Manion asks a disturbing but necessary question: "Could it be that today’s Christian warmongers don’t mind the killing of individual Christians (or a few million of them), as long as they succeed in bringing on Armageddon and the Rapture?" I might ask the question a bit differently: Are American Christians more willing to sacrifice their allegiance to brothers and sisters in the faith than to the American state and its military?

I'm afraid the evidence offers an answer that gives me great sorrow as a Christian. I can't help but think of Jesus's words, "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” It is well past time for American Christians to heed this call to love before the Christian presence in the Middle East is completely annihilated.

Torture and Murder at America's Gulag

Scott Horton, international human rights lawyer, has broken shocking new details on the supposed suicides of three Guantanamo detainees back in June of 2006. His article, "The Guantanamo 'Suicides': A Camp Delta sergeant blows the whistle", is available now at Harpers.org. The article is a must-read; it's lengthy but unfolds like an Alfred Hitchcock nightmare, chock-full of damning evidence of torture and murder at a black site just outside Guantanamo's prison grounds.

Three prisoners, none charged with any crime and two scheduled for release, turned up dead around midnight on June 9, 2006. The official explanation from the military was that they had hung themselves in an attempt at "asymmetrical warfare." According to the official narrative, the three detainees hung sheets up to hide themselves in their cells, shaped pillows on their mats to appear to be in bed, then bound their own hands and feet, stuffed rags down their own throats, tied cloths around their mouths to keep the rags in, climbed up on their washbasins, secured nooses around their necks, and leaped to hang until asphyxiated. Somehow these impossible feats were all accomplished nearly simultaneously in non-adjoining cells, with the very limited amount of linens in their cells, and without attracting any attention from the guards until after hanging for two hours.

The truth is that they were taken to a secret interrogation site, unofficially known as Camp No, and when they were brought back, they were dead due to suffocation from rags stuffed down their throats. Gitmo leadership, along with NCIS, FBI, and Justice Department collaboration, then embarked on an elaborate cover-up, which continues to this day. Fortunately, the sergeant in charge of security that night has exposed the truth, as corroborated by at least three other witnesses. For more details about that fateful night, please read Horton's indispensable account. You can also hear a great interview with him on Antiwar Radio here.

This story is a tragic microcosm of the pure evil that is Guantanamo. We have been told for years by Republican politicians that Gitmo is practically a spa, a paradise of a prison where dirty rotten terrorists get better treatment than common American criminals. The claim is that Gitmo holds only "the worst of the worst", and that these diabolical masterminds will unleash untold violence and chaos on our land unless we deny them their unalienable rights to be charged, face their accuser, be tried, and then released if found innocent.

But the truth is that the huge majority of Gitmo detainees are innocent and should never have been imprisoned in the first place. In a recent interview on Antiwar Radio, Andy Worthington, author of The Guantanamo Files, revealed that the Geneva Conventions require that any prisoners captured in a time of war that lack the uniform or markings of an official enemy must go through an initial screening process to determine if they should truly be detained. In fact, during the first Gulf War, the U.S. captured 1200 such persons, and after review, released 900.

Without such processes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and with the U.S. offering bounties of $3,000 to $5,000, countless innocent men were detained and sent to Guantanamo. At least 759 prisoners have cycled through Gitmo, with the current population at 198. Worthington estimates that only 60 prisoners at the most actually deserve to be in custody.

As further evidence of just how many innocents are held at Gitmo, of the 41 Habeas Corpus suits brought by detainees over the last year and a half, 32 have resulted in a ruling releasing the prisoner. The standard of evidence at a Habeas Corpus hearing is the lowest of any legal proceeding. This means that for at least 32 Gitmo detainees, the government has absolutely no evidence or reason to hold them! Many of these rulings have come from conservative, Bush-appointed judges no less.

Now, after years or torture, abuse, and hopelessly indefinite detention, U.S. authorities are afraid to release innocent prisoners because of the fear they have been radicalized by their experiences. And this is to speak nothing of the prison camp at Bagram in Afghanistan, the black sites circling the globe, and U.S. detainees rendered to prisons in complicit foreign countries.

One of the things I find most discouraging in all this is that Christian conservatives, who loudly claim to adhere to the principles of the Constitution and their faith, support Guantanamo and the atrocities committed there, which directly violate those very principles they supposedly hold dear. I've been hearing a lot lately that the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply only to American citizens. This assertion is wrong both from a philosophical view and a historical view.

For the philosophical basis of the Constitution, we must visit the Declaration of Independence, which declares that our rights to life and liberty are endowed by our creator, embedded in our very humanity, and not in our nationality. Whether Christians like it or not, God created Muslims too -- even the evil ones -- and they therefore deserve to be treated with the same dignity that we would demand for an American (ever hear of the Golden Rule?).

The concept of Habeas Corpus extends back 800 years, and has been long relied on as a vital protection from unlawful detention. Every human, if he is to be imprisoned, deserves to be formally charged with a legitimate crime, have a chance to argue his innocence, and be convicted only by a reasonable and fair process. These rights are formally protected by the 5th through 8th Amendments to the Constitution. Evidently, the founders saw this as an important area; one far too often abused by rulers throughout the centuries.

The 5th Amendment begins, "No person...", and 6th, "In all criminal prosecutions...", so there should be little doubt that these not only apply to American citizens but also anyone who comes under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. Some argue that Gitmo detainees are prisoners of war and therefore should not be afforded the privileges of the Bill of Rights, but instead fall under military justice. But keep in mind that 1) congress has not declared war constitutionally, so any legal arguments based on the presumption that we are at war start out on shaky ground, 2) the huge majority of detainees have not been arrested on a field of battle, and 3) "war on terror" detainees are not being held under normal, historical U.S. military justice.

There is also the important fact that we have a recent history of trying terrorists in federal court, both citizen and alien: Timothy McVeigh, "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid, the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, and even 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussoaui. For a very good article on this subject, please see Judge Andrew Napolitano: "The Case Against Military Tribunals."

But even all these reasons should be secondary for a true Christian. The first call of every Christian is to love, even to love our enemies. And yet millions of American Christians support the atrocities committed at Gitmo and elsewhere, and sadly, by that support they are complicit. How can we claim to be followers of Christ and turn a blind eye to such horrific disregard for the image of God that every human carries? If we hold principles that we conditionally suspend for brown people of a different religion, are they really principles in the first place? Justice can and should be sought in a humane, Christ-honoring way.

Prominent Christains Call for Sanctions Against Iran

I learned today by way of Philip Giraldi's latest article at Antiwar.com of an open letter sent by Christian Leaders for a Nuclear Free Iran to top members of the U.S. Congress that pushes for "immediate passage of tough sanctions on Iran". Like Giraldi, I am appalled and saddened that this is what America's Christian leaders are now supporting. Sanctions are immoral and counterproductive.

Most importantly, the hardships of the sanctions recently passed by the House would by far fall most heavily on the most vulnerable of the Iranian population. Iran imports 40% of its refined fuel; this would all be cut off under the sanctions bill. Those most affected would be women, children, and the poor who would not be able to afford to heat their homes at the skyrocketing prices sure to result. This directly violates the Biblical mandate to tend to the poor.

And for what? Sanctions have never proven an effective tool. Rather than turn the citizenry against their domestic leadership (which is the story commonly told), sanctions embitter the people toward the foreign enforcer and entrench support for the domestic power structure. If there is a shortage of fuel in Iran, who do you think will get it? The State will take all it needs, leaving the populace in a far weaker position to oppose them even if they wanted to.

Many very prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations are represented in the letter, including Richard Land, Pat Robertson, Chuck Colson, Gary Bauer, John Hagee, and Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family. FOCUS ON THE FAMILY!!! Supporting an evil act of war that will wreak horrific devastation on Iranian families.

I urge you to read Giraldi's well-written article. He points out several important inaccuracies and untruths contained the Christian Leaders' letter. One most important point is that Iran is in full compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has been fully cooperative with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Giraldi points out that seeking a nuclear-free Iran "is particularly ironic as Iran is in fact nuclear-free."

I call upon these Christian leaders to abandon their warmongering, and turn instead to truly honor the Prince of Peace they supposedly follow. Many of them were also signatories to the recent Manhattan Declaration, which among other things, staked out a firmly pro-life stance. I challenge these leaders to take a consistent pro-life stance, and reject sanctions which will only bring death to many innocents while pushing peace out of reach.

Rising Military Suicides Reflect War's Moral Trauma

In an article released earlier this week, independent journalist Dahr Jamail documents the mounting mental toll on veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. For the first time since the Vietnam War, the Army's suicide rate exceeds that of the civilian population.

Multiple deployments to fight an illegal and unjust war are wreaking havoc on the mental health of American soldiers. According to Jamail, a RAND Corporation report found that 300,000 Iraq and Afghanistan vets suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or severe depression, yet only half sought treatment. Former sergeant, Chuck Luther is quoted in the article as saying that he has "heard commanders tell soldiers requesting psychological help that they are full of crap and don’t have PTSD."

18 veterans are killing themselves every day, according the a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) email cited by Jamail. He also reveals that the VA is logging 1000 suicide attempts per month among those under its care.

These reports are disturbing and tragic, but are they really surprising? While the American public blithely ignores the reality of war in general and these wars in particular, U.S. soldiers are buckling under the weight of their horrific experiences.

Compared to WWII, when less than half of U.S. soldiers actually discharged their weapons, new training techniques have resulted in over 90% of soldiers now firing at the "enemy". In addition to the fact that more soldiers now must deal with the guilt of personally ending human life, the current wars are taking place in more urban settings and among civilian populations, leading to an unprecedented level of "collateral" death. This would understandably carry a high price on one's mental stability.

Returning soldiers are not the only ones who suffer from PTSD. Military families are seeing a disturbing increase in domestic violence as well. How far must these trends escalate until the American public stirs from its insulated stupor? Since the end of the Vietnam war, 170,000 veterans of that conflict have killed themselves. How many lives and families must be destroyed before we cry, "Enough!"?

Is War Immoral Anymore?

Paul Craig Roberts' latest column at Antiwar.com makes an important and disheartening point about how antiwar arguments have morphed over the decades. Rather than the common perception that the the Vietnam war was brought to its brutal end by antipathy for the draft, Roberts argues that Americans had tired of the immorality of what was until recently our longest war.

Roberts credits a (marginally) more independent media, unafraid to cast the war in moral terms through such images as "the film of the naked little girl running in terror down the road burning with napalm", for "arousing moral opposition to the [Vietnam] war."

Today's conflicts in Iraq and Af-Pak are all too often judged only on materialist conditions, such as U.S. military deaths, what Roberts calls, "Karl Marx's explanation." Indeed, when John McCain argued during the 2008 presidential campaign that the U.SI. could remain in Iraq for 100 years, his sole justification was limiting casualties of U.S. soldiers. Never mind the morality of forcibly occupying the native land of people with the same inalienable, God-given natural rights as the rest of us.

Roberts' conclusion for why the American people have tolerated these morally indefensible wars for so long?:

The answer is that the United States is an immoral country, with an immoral people and an immoral government. Americans no longer have a moral conscience. They have gone over to the Dark Side.

Sadly, I think that Roberts' prognosis is spot on. Christianity's peaceful heritage has long ago been forsaken in America. Pacifism among American Christians was much more widespread prior to WWI than after. Especially since the Cold War, Christians have been the worst warmongers of any segment of society. I would definitely describe that as a moral decline.

This article needs to be taken very seriously by any American who values morality as the foundation of a sound society.

Christian Nation Hypocrisy

Many of today’s leading Christian Conservatives (CCs) often bemoan America’s moral decay as a betrayal of its explicitly biblical foundation. Growing up surrounded by such luminaries as David Barton, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Bill Bennett, I heard countless times that the USA was and is a “Christian Nation”. This tag seemed to be assumed from the fact that the Plymouth pilgrims were Puritans, that the majority of the founding fathers professed a Christian faith of some variety, and that Christianity has remained the dominant religion in American society.

An important facet of this Christian Nation Hypothesis is the belief that the American founders explicitly intended to base the nation’s laws and governmental form directly on the Bible, rather than on universal natural law. This has given Christian Conservatism a flavor of near-theocracy, as activists seek to permeate the public atmosphere with explicitly Christian symbolism, such as displays of the Ten Commandments in government courthouses and prayer in government schools.

One tragic result of this view of constitution as bible is that it often gives a holy aura of religious justification for the state in general and the American state in particular. This rationalization is seen no more clearly than in CCs’ reverence for the American military and its wars.

It is always an unspoken assumption among CCs that American wars are only commenced for the noblest of reasons, are prosecuted by the noblest of means, and that American soldiers inherently act with honor, nobility and sacrifice. This is as opposed to the evil enemy soldiers who torture innocents, kill indiscriminately, and take orders from ruthless, bloodthirsty tyrants, hungry for world domination and the extinction of the Christian heritage of freedom and democracy. If American soldiers ever cross the perceived line of morality, it can either be dismissed as an anomaly or excused as acceptable based on the greater evil of the enemy.

This fable is strengthened all the more by the fact that the enemy soldiers many times are of an inferior religion, such as the atheist communists of North Vietnam and North Korea, or the Muslims of Iraq and Afghanistan.

CCs often lament America’s moral decay, exemplified by teenage sexual promiscuity, the legalized murder of innocent unborn, divorce rates, and the widespread acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. American society has demonstrably strayed from biblical mores to be sure. But glaringly missing from the list above is decade after decade of military incursion, occupation, and domination by American troops across the globe.

Christians are right to measure society against biblical standards in areas of sexuality, family, and the sanctity of life in utero. But why are obvious biblical teachings so easily ignored when it comes to questions of war, peace, militarism, torture, and the sanctity of foreign lives? It’s not as if the Bible doesn’t address such issues.

Jesus’ life on earth is a shining example of proactive, non-violent activism. He came to earth as Messiah to a place and time that interpreted the Messiah as a liberating military/political leader. He had every opportunity to rally his followers to arms. Instead, he led a mission of uncompromising peace and love in the face of virulent, and eventually violent, opposition.

When Christians cheer “shock and awe” bombing campaigns, do they think of Jesus’ words, “Love your enemies?”

When they defend the merciless torturing of prisoners based on the supposition that they are religiously-motivated killers, do they hear Jesus’ admonition to, “Pray for those that persecute you?”

When they justify violent retaliation for perceived wrongs, do they forget that, “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord?”

When they condemn the enemy’s actions as war crimes, are they oblivious is Jesus’ warning to, “first take the plank out of your own eye?”

When they excuse the death and destruction of foreign civilians’ lives as collateral damage, how to they expect to honor the Great Commission’s call to take the Gospel to the entire world?

When Christian leaders seek God’s forgiveness for the nation’s sins in order to restore God’s favor, do they recall Jesus’ promise that, “Blessed are the peacemakers?”

Some may contend that the Bible’s mandates for Christian peace apply only to individuals and not states. But what is a state besides a collection of individuals? A state has no soul, no conscience, no moral will other than that of its leaders and followers. And those leaders and followers are individuals who are ultimately accountable for their choices and actions as measured against the biblical moral standard.

Besides, even if the state was an entity exempt from individual moral responsibilities, if ours is a “Christian Nation”, it should therefore wholly reflect and promote Christ’s values. If the CCs are right about America’s Christian identity, then they are being grossly hypocritical in their application of biblical standards by cheering warfare. If they are wrong, then they still hold an individual moral duty to adhere to all biblical standards, supremely the call to love our neighbors and enemies.

American Christians need to abandon this tragic dichotomy and turn instead to consistently pursue the path blazed by the Prince of Peace. The Gospel of Jesus is a gospel of peace and reconciliation, of unwarranted compassion from a God of perfect holiness and justice. We do the Gospel great shame to practice anything less.