But, as Monica points out below, it isn’t about following the rules, it is about enforcing adherence to an ideology of war and to the political ideology that creates it. These soldiers sign up, as far as I can tell, to be NeoCon Republican Warriors, representing the ideology in power rather than the people of the country, and that’s a critical distinction because it represents another step towards a totalitarian state in this country where allegiance to Party or Great Leader is more important than following the tenets of our foundational document, the Constitution, or recognizing that the government is far more than one party, one branch, one man or one ideology.

Kevin followed the rules and he is treated with a form of slow torture, a torture of the soul, a breaking of the spirit. Reread Orwell’s 1984, especially the part where Winston is imprisoned, and when you do remember that Kevin followed the rules, did everything by the book, yet he sits in jail, convicted of a Thoughtcrime.

Here are Monica’s words.

Kevin and I both appreciate the support that people have given to us in the ways that they can. We appreciate that it has made others aware of Kevin’s situation. We also respect that everyone has the right to choose who and what they support.

We respect the rights of soldiers to choose — that is the central core of Kevin’s actions – and why he has taken the stand that he has. We do our best to speak for soldiers’ rights and that they be given the respect they deserve for the service they have given. Where we differ with some is how we feel that respect is best represented.

Kevin served honorably for 10 years — and even during his court martial, and the subsequent 11 months in confinement — Kevin has not violated one regulation, not broken one law. He is confined and serving time by virtue of his command not following the rules — Kevin went to jail with his head high because he knew that his integrity was intact — he was being punished for his morality, his ethics, his conscience — and that conscience would not allow him to break a law or violate a regulation even when he was being treated unjustly.

I am so proud of Kevin for that — he has faced an amazing struggle – and he has done so honorably. When he is released, we can fight to bring about the changes in the laws that we know need to be changed, because the need for those changes has been demonstrated in the unethical actions of his command as opposed so clearly by the ethical actions of Kevin. Kevin stood strong against the established law, something many others speak of but do not do when they choose to violate those laws in an attempt to prove the sincerity of their conviction.

We can’t condone breaking a law to prove that someone else has broken a law — even if our personal beliefs are such that we feel laws have been broken — we have to set those beliefs aside – we have learned to – to support what is ethically, morally and legally just and fair. I think a big reason for that is that Kevin has been treated so unfairly. It is something we have felt and lived with – and we are not willing to put anyone else through that – even if we have been put through it. We KNOW the heartache it causes – we are living with it every single day. It is not a game.

That said — we prefer that Kevin’s case not be combined with cases of resisters who have chosen to take steps that mean breaking laws. We support those soldiers in their right to choose how they represent themselves, and we wish them well. We have simply chosen a different representation of our values. I wonder if those resisters know that jail is just a different form of the inhumanity we see in war? We choose to use our experiences to keep others from having to face it — not encourage others to dare the system to put them there.

And — I wonder if those who choose to support their actions know what they are sending them off to? Daily strip searches — often times by people of the opposite sex – forced to wake up in the night by guards who are playing games, turning the lights on and off — guards who can sentence you to time in the “hole” simply because they have “power” over you… 19 year olds who have never seen combat ordering around a 40 year old combat veteran who could teach them a thousand lessons about respect — being forced to have your meal tray prepared last, only to have the guards tip it and send it flying, simply because they want to make you break a rule they live for the chance — and even if you don’t they don’t care – because they’ll find you guilty of breaking a rule anyway and take away everything you have just to have a laugh. spending 60 days in a bay with 25 other men — not being allowed to leave — no reading materials, except the mail (I send Kevin two letters a day… TWO — morning and night – 4 pages each time — so he does have something to read), no TV, no phone contact – with ANYONE – meals late, sometimes burned, no exercise, no time outside – 24 hours a day – for 60 days — and your life at the complete mercy of people who have never been taught to respect life – showers being watched, bathroom time being watched – never a moment when you are alone, when you can quietly have your thoughts.

It hurts me to know that Kevin was sent to face this having done nothing wrong – while people stand up and announce on TV and in protests that they support breaking the law – they don’t mind going to jail — as if it were something they looked forward to. And then – there are those who support the efforts of others to break laws that can put them in jail…. my husband is in jail – you don’t want to wish that on anyone. And given the choice to support soldiers — there are those people who would support Kevin as long as his situation is included with others who are willing to break laws to define their position — but in doing so they seem to be saying that his sacrifice has no meaning unless it is included with these others – — once again, his position is the one sacrificed – it seems. But it is a sacrifice we have chosen – because of everything we have been through. Interesting how many people have written to argue their case that Kevin’s case should be combined with the others who are breaking laws — when so few are arguing that others should take legal steps to support their moral and ethical conscience and follow Kevin to live with a strong enough will to defend the law of the land by upholding it.

But we support a soldier’s right to decide – whether he fights, or runs, or breaks a law – or stands for his beliefs in accordance with the law – our constitution is what he has sworn to uphold and every soldier is free to choose.

A Man’s Word

When a soldier no longer wants to fight, when his conscience tells him that he can no longer believe in the mission and commanders order that soldier back to combat against his will, there is something wrong. There is something very wrong when commanders send that soldier to jail simply because they cannot control what he believes, and what he believes scares them.

In Afghanistan, we are witnessing a tragic violation of basic human rights – rights given to all people simply for being alive. A man has made a choice – a personal choice – and he is being threatened with death because of his choice.

Our government officials have stepped in and offered their thoughts on how the Afghan government should proceed in their treatment of this man. Members of our administration have publicly stated that freedom of religion is a personal choice, one afforded all human beings; the man should be set free and allowed to practice his religion as he chooses. This is the same administration that allowed my husband to go to jail for making a choice – a personal, moral choice based on his ethical beliefs.

My husband, Sgt. Kevin Benderman, chose to no longer participate in war. He followed the Army regulations, filed a Conscientious Objector application, and acted honorably every step of the way. His unit commanders chose to punish him for not allowing them to control him with their threats, and my husband went to jail simply because his commanders had no integrity, no honor and no respect for the very constitution they had given a sworn oath to uphold.

Sadly – the military administration has sided with my husband’s commanders to this point. At any time, any member of the military heirarchy could have stepped in and ordered the command to abide by the regulations. Instead, the military powers that be chose to turn a deaf ear to the truth and the facts, and allow the continued mistreatment of one of their own – a veteran who has served with distinction for ten years.

The sworn testimony given verbatim in the Record of Trial from my husband’s court martial, clearly shows an incompetent command; a command that lied, mishandled their administration of my husband’s request, and fabricated evidence after the fact. It shows a command that had no knowledge of the regulations, no idea how to respond to my husband’s request and admittedly made no effort to learn.

The company commander stated for the record that “Sgt. Benderman is just one soldier out of 191 that I command. I did not have time to worry about him.” He went on to admit that he “was not aware of the proper procedures for handling Sgt. Benderman’s request, but if he had been he would have taken steps to correct his actions.”

On five separate occasions, the Command Sgt. Major of the battalion gave sworn testimony regarding a meeting he requested with my husband to discuss his Conscientious Objector application. These sworn testimonies contradicted each other with regard to several of the facts that, had the truth been told, would have exonerated my husband before there ever was a court martial. On the witness stand, this Sgt. Major was questioned about the fact that his sworn statements contradicted each other, and was asked if they were indeed his statements. He confirmed that he had made each one, and went on to state that none of those had been the truth; that he was telling the truth in the courtroom that day. The first statement given was most accurate, having been made right after the meeting with my husband. Subsequent statements appeared to change as the prosecutors needed to bend the rules to make their allegations fit. The “truth” on the stand was remembered 7 months later, noticeably altered from the original testimony, also given under oath.

Also included in the Record of Trial for my husband’s court martial was a statement made by the Convening Authority overseeing the court martial – the Acting Commander of Ft. Stewart, Georgia. During the first week of February 2006, this commander had a meeting with the Staff Judge Advocate at Ft. Stewart. He stated that he would not accept a plea bargain, and he wanted to make sure that my husband went to jail for “no less that 18 months.” This is the man who would ultimately determine whether all procedures and regulations had been properly followed during the court martial process, and approve the final outcome of the trial. The question here – why had he already determined my husband’s guilt – and for what crime was he expecting to sentence my husband? There was not even an investigation into the charges that they would consider bringing against my husband until a week after the commander held this meeting.

My husband has now served 8 months in jail, apparently because the commanders of the US military are not bound by the oaths they take. The commanders of the US military have a choice – they can abide by their personal integrity and lead by following the rules, or they can make up the rules as they go along — so much for integrity.

My husband was eligible for parole on January 27, 2006. According to the Dept. of the Army Regulations 190-47, the rules governing the operations of military corrections facilities, the command of the correctional facility where he is incarcerated should have held a hearing regarding my husband’s request for parole in December 2005; no later than 30 days prior to his eligibility date. The command did not set the date for his hearing until mid-January, and it was finally held on February 15, 2006. Three weeks later they got around to sending their recommendations to the Parole Board in Virginia.

Apparently, it does not matter where the commanders of the US Army are stationed, or what their assignment – few of them seem bound by the oaths they take.

For ten years, Sgt. Kevin Benderman served the Army of this United States with honor and integrity. He received nothing but commendations and outstanding evaluations, and not one derrogatory counseling statement. Kevin went to Iraq and performed his duties with the same integrity and honor that he gave to all aspects of his service. After firsthand experience, knowing that he could no longer participate in war, recognizing it as “the greatest form of man’s inhumanity to man” he prepared to leave the military when his enlistment expired. The US Army refused to let him go peacefully and issued him a stop/loss order.

Following regulations, and staying true to himself and his beliefs, Kevin submitted a Conscientious Objector application in spite of a Company chaplain who would rather “debate” Kevin than assist him in his legal request and a Company commander who believed that threats, intimidation and character attacks would convince my husband to bend to his will.

The actions of the command make a statement loud and clear. It is not the statement they would like us to believe however. While their public statements mentioned that the sentencing of my husband was meant to “show other members of the military that they could not use Conscientious Objection as a way to avoid service in Iraq,” their actions show nothing more than cowardice in the face of moral courage and personal integrity; two character traits sorely lacking in many of the commanders my husband has been forced to serve with for the past 3 years.

When called to hold themselves accountable to the oaths they took, these men failed miserably. At a time when leadership at all levels is sorely needed these men showed clearly why this country is in the mess we’re in.

The RULES are there for a reason, and an oath taken is one that is meant to be kept unless the party to whom the oath is given has broken their word. Perhaps that is the problem in a nutshell. The oath that is taken relies on the integrity of an individual to keep his word. For the commanders in the military to understand the meaning of keeping their word, they would require an example in those who lead them.

Every member of the military and our government has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. My husband went to jail because he refused to compromise on the oath he took, nor on his personal principles, and continues to defend the right to freely choose how he will live.

Integrity – the true measure of a man is in the word he keeps.

Monica is the wife of Sgt. Kevin Benderman, Conscientious Objector to war and the current status of this country, and currently serving a prison sentence at the RCF at Ft. Lewis, WA. To learn more – please visit BendermanDefense.org and www.BendermanTimeline.com

Kevin and Monica may be contacted at mdawnb@coastalnow.net

From Chaos to Conscience to Peace
Monica Benderman

Please visit Sgt. Benderman’s website BendermanTimeline.com for a chronology of events, complete with documentation, leading to his court martial, along with a continuous discussion about Conscientious Objection and veterans’ issues.

On July 27, 2005, Sgt. Kevin Benderman was found guilty of Missing Movement and sentenced to 15 months confinement, loss of pay and dishonorable discharge. In actuality, Sgt. Benderman’s crime was daring to tell the truth, and daring to challenge the very philosophy of the military machine in which he had volunteered to serve, by filing for Conscientious Objection for no longer wanting to participate in war, and for speaking out to end violence as a means of resolving our differences.

Conscientious Objection is not just objecting to war. It is objecting to chaos, to everything about life that keeps it from a peaceful path. War is chaos, but chaos is also war.

Each person is going to have to one day face the process of becoming conscientious objectors in their lives before we can achieve peace. You will not all face the combat zone of war to do this. You may face a war of your own, far from the battlefields that our soldiers now face in Iraq.

As Sgt. Benderman made every attempt to live by his beliefs, his command did everything possible to dissuade him. They went to great lengths to keep him from speaking his truth, and from talking about what he had come to believe about war versus peace.

What was it they were afraid of? Why were they so anxious to regain control of this soldier? Did his declaration of conscience make them think? When he spoke of what he saw, when he spoke of how it made him feel, did they look in the mirror and see the same questions in themselves? Was it their own conscience that made them afraid?

Sgt. Benderman didn’t run. He stood his ground and faced down every wanton act of corruption it took from his commanding officers, as they scrambled to create a story that they could all keep track of, and put Sgt. Benderman in jail. He had done nothing wrong, except dare to point out actions that his principles would no longer allow him to be part of. Like little children who cover their ears and hum to avoid hearing that playtime is over, the command was desperate to find a way to imprison the truth to avoid having to look it in the eye.

Conscientious Objection is no longer defined merely by one’s religious commitment. It is about living with your principles, values, and morals. It is about maintaining high standards for your own life, and letting your conscience be your guide. It is knowing the best way to lead when it comes to defending your country, its constitution and your honor, and letting that wisdom dictate your actions regardless of whom it calls into question.

The rules of Conscientious Objection have changed. In this day, a Conscientious Objector must be aggressive in defense of peace, and must rely on his own integrity and moral principles when many around him dare to call him coward.

Sgt. Benderman’s command would like people to believe that because he chose to no longer participate in this war, that made him a coward, and it made him unpatriotic. Being a Conscientious Objector is the highest form of patriotism when it is an objection to an aggressive war that destroys a culture of innocent people for no good reason, and abuses the integrity of the service of those who volunteered to defend our country, expecting the same integrity from those who lead them.

Sgt. Benderman’s command would like people to believe that he was denied his claim because he was not sincere in his beliefs of Conscientious Objection – that he really only filed the claim to avoid returning to hazardous duty. He did file the claim to avoid returning to war, but he is not avoiding his duty.

The duty he now serves is to defend his country against people who refuse to see just how destructive the path they have chosen really is. The service he now gives, is in speaking of his own change of beliefs, in the hope that others will see that we all must become conscientious objectors before we can achieve peace.

The defense of one’s home does not always mean “taking the fight to the enemy’s soil” and it does not always mean defending your home against an outside force. Sometimes, the enemy is within, and sometimes defending one’s home means standing up against our own fears, looking in the mirror and facing our conscience when we realize what it is that we have become.

The journey to Conscientious Objection is a personal journey, no different than the journey to peace. We each must embark upon it in our own time, and through our own experiences, but until every individual takes that step, we will continue to have chaos, and we will continue to confront the violent actions of others who would choose to disrupt the peaceful path that Conscientious Objectors have chosen to walk.

It is when those who have come to understand the true meaning of peace have learned to live it in spite of the chaos others seek to encourage, that we will finally begin to emerge from the cycle of hate and destruction.

We cannot control the life of another. We can only understand this when we have learned to control ourselves. To embark on a personal journey to Conscientious Objection could be the best way to begin.

To learn more about Sgt. Kevin Benderman’s journey to Conscientious Objection, and to understand the psychological and manipulative tactics he faced from the Military and the chain of command to deter him from his public stance on Conscientious Objection, please visit our website

Monica Benderman may be reached at mdawnb@coastalnow.net or monica@BendermanTimeline.com

Your letters will be kept and available for Kevin when he returns
home.

Kevin would also ask that you understand that, while he values your
support and appreciates every letter individually written to him, it
is more important that we continue to address our concerns to people
in his chain of command. He would ask that you write letters on his
behalf to:

…..

Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson
One Overton Park,
3625 Cumberland Blvd Ste.
970 Atlanta, GA 30339

fax – 770-661-0768

………………..

Dr. Francis Harvey – Sec. of the Army
101 Army Pentagon Washington,
DC 20301-0101

fax – 703-697-8036

………………

Donald Rumsfeld – Sec. of the Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301-1000

fax – 703-697-8339

………………

Col. John Kidd
42 Wayne Place Ste.
203 Ft. Stewart, GA 31314

Kevin thanks you for your continued support and encouragement.

Monica Benderman, August 10, 2005, joins Talk Nation Radio Host Dori Smith, to talk about her husband, Kevin Benderman, who received 15 months in prison after asking his commanding officers for conscientious objector status.

C/O Status is not easy to get in the Military. Hundreds of soldiers had applied for it as of 2003 Thousands of soldiers also go AWOL, according to Mark Krall at the Center on Conscience and War

This is not something the Military likes to talk about but it happens more than you might think, he said, and as a general rule it’s easier to get out of the Military than soldiers and others may think. For example, the Military can’t do much if anything if recruits simply don’t show up for basic training. Recruiters may harass people, however, there really is little they can do to someone who has signed up but doesn’t show up. (A6) The ATRRS Manager enters into ATRRS a code “U” with a reason code of “%”. If they return the second MUTA-4 without requirements or do not show up at all then the TASS Battalion Commander must notify the student’s first general officer in their chain-of-command and company commander in writing that enrollment is denied for not satisfying course prerequisites and ATRRS is unchanged. If the student returns the second MUTA-4 with all requirements then the code “U” is changed to “I” and delete the “%” code.)

There are a variety of ways that the Center can help people who do not wish to remain in the Military, or who are trying to make a decision about becoming a C/O. There are a variety of ways the Center on Conscience and War can help people who don’t wish to remain in the Military. Call 1-800-394-9544 for the GI Rights Hotline for further information.

Amnesty International considers Kevin Benderman to be a “Prisoner of Conscience” imprisoned solely for his conscientious objection to the war in Iraq. Their August 9th Action Alert says, “Amnesty International considers his objection to the war in Iraq to be genuine and credible. The organization also considers that he did take reasonable steps to secure release from Military obligations through filing his application.”

Kevin Benderman was convicted on charges of missing his brigades movements under article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice He will also receive a dishonorable discharge and reduction of rank. His lawyers are appealing the verdict.

Monica Benderman joins us today to talk about her husband and what he is trying to do:

Monica, Welcome to Talk Nation Radio.

Monica: Thank you.

Smith: The last time we talked you were waiting to know what would happen to your husband Kevin as he had tried to get C/O status and was struggling with the Military. Now, he’s been given 15 months in prison. Why don’t you bring us up to date first on what happened with his trials and what the culminating decisions were?

Monica Benderman: They found him guilty of what’s called “missing movements” which in essence is basically they are saying that he was assigned to a manifest to fly on a certain plane and he wasn’t there to get on the plane. And so that’s why he is spending 15 months in confinement. He was also found not guilty of desertion.

Smith: Now, that’s got to be good news, at least some good news.

Monica Benderman: Well certainly his sentence is far less than what it could have been and you know obviously we look at it and yes he’s confined and in 15 months maximum, but that’s the worst that can happen to him now. When he’s finished with his 15 months he’s out, he’s done what he knows is the right thing for him. He took a stand that worked for him and he didn’t back down from it. And so the worst thing is that he is confined for at most, 15 months.

Smith: Monica, we talked a little bit last time you were on the program about Kevin’s reason for doing what he did, for trying to become a C/O First. Let me ask one of the more obvious questions. Now that your husband is in prison for 15 months do you still believe that this stand you are taking is worth it?

Monica Benderman: Yes! Without a doubt! And I don’t think, you could tell on Kevin’s face even at the moment that they sentenced him. He didn’t blink an eye. It’s what he believes in with all his heart. It’s what he knows is right and it’s yes, there’s no doubt at all.”

Smith: I know a lot of Kevin’s story strikes members of the Military like him, who have served several different tours of duty in various places; it has struck people as somewhat extraordinary for one reason or another. I mean, people have strong feelings about what he did. Why don’t you go over some of what people have been saying that are also in the Military because there are raw feelings, lives upturned, are people do you feel in the Military struggling with you? Do they accept you still? What’s your experience been like?

Monica Benderman: The soldiers that are close to Kevin, the ones that are here on Post and have watched this entire experience, are behind Kevin because they know him and they understand that he is taking a stand for his conscience, for what he believes in. But they know too that the only way that they are going to be safe is for war, this war in particular, to stop. And that’s basically what Kevin is saying with his stand. They, at first maybe have struggled a little bit with his decision because you do hear from people–well he had a duty, he left his soldiers hanging, he should have been there–that is something they brought out in the Court Martial itself, that another NCO had to be trained in his position. But honestly, Kevin tried for almost a year to work with his command, to try to get himself into a position first of non-combat status. He worked finally into a position that was in administration. He tried talking with his chaplain. He tried to give them notice and let them know and they brushed it off. They took that stand and said: We’re not going to listen to you, you’re balking, you’re going to go, and there isn’t anything you can do.

So we look it at that way, that there’s a lot of the story that soldiers who are not right here are unaware of, the circumstances. They are not involved with it so they don’t know everything that happened. We understand their feelings. Kevin does too. This is certainly not in any way a statement on Kevin’s part or my part that we don’t respect soldiers, that we don’t respect the hard work they are doing because Kevin has done that hard work. He’s been there. He knows what it’s like. He just knows that right now, for himself to bring the peace that he needs, and also to feel that he is doing something right for those young soldiers that served with him, he has got to take the stand that he is taking.

Smith: I did happen to see Tim Goodrich speak briefly Veterans Against the Iraq War during a rally that was televised on Tim Goodrich has testified actually at the World Tribunal on Iraq and I bring him up because one of the things that he said in the context of the discussion being the “Downing Street” documents that show that members of the British Government and U.S. Government met well in advance of their having gone to their respective governments, countries, to talk about the need for invading Iraq: that they met secretly, that they planned the war secretly, and that there was discussion about how to fix the intelligence, fix the facts, so that the argument for weapons of mass destruction would work. (See: C-Span, Rally for Opposition to the War in Iraq, August 1, 2005)

In advance of anyone knowing about what the U.S. Military was doing or planning to do, a unit that Tim Goodrich was with that was in Afghanistan moved out, shipped out, and began to engage in strikes against Saddam Hussein’s army in Iraq. And he described this as part of a U.S. Military effort to either get Saddam Hussein to strike out at the U.S. Military and provide a rationale for an invasion or soften up the war zone for the pending invasion. And that is shocking news to those of us who thought the invasion was starting when all of the discussion was going on in the U.S. Press. That, of course, we heard right through 2003, discussion about whether or not the war was going to happen and there were at least some discussions on the part of members of Congress. But I remembered how the President argued that he was giving Saddam Hussein every chance to provide documents and then Saddam Hussein did provide documents, and then every argument having to do with the United Nations just seemed to come undone as this White House bullied it’s way into this war. So going back to what I heard Tim Goodrich say, here is a soldier who says his new mission now is to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq.

It really sounds as if between now and September there will be a lot going on toward that end. Just talk about the larger picture of other GIs and of this new interest on the part of soldiers to bring U.S. forces home from Downing Street Memos Kevin and I talked for pretty much the entire year of 2002 about what their mission was and what was happening. And for the spring of 2002, Kevin knew Iraq was going to happen. He didn’t know when or how but that was the discussion with us. I mean we need to get together, we need to spend time together, and Iraq is going to happen. And that was clear, from March and April of 2002 on, with the soldiers at the 4th ID

Now, exactly what specifically they were told I couldn’t tell you because he never did tell me, but, his comment was, “we’re going to Iraq”. And as far as spending time together and getting together, let’s get a lot organized because this is what is going to happen. So I have no doubt that they had a plan and that they knew what was going on.

Aside from that, Kevin’s stance really has to be taken a step over and above just this war because there are so many people that are speaking about the specifics and the illegalities which we are not going to dispute and we are certainly not going to deny. But the fact is in Kevin’s mind what made him make the choice that he did was that, I think historically, that if we could look back in depth to past wars beyond the death that we had with the Iraq war, with communications and technology and what’s out there with the media and everything right now, we would find that no war is any different. It’s a series of deceptions. Its people feeling that the answer is violence: That it’s a matter of control, it’s a matter of occupation and it is a matter of putting somebody down by force. And war is just such a negative thing. It’s killing. It’s destructive. There can’t be anything about it that you could look at as being positive. And that’s what Kevin’s looking at. So we need to solve the problems of this war because this is where we are. This is the war that gave Kevin his first hand experience and he said, “I will not be part of this anymore.”

His first hand experience tied into what he knew from history, what his father in WWII had told him, why his father came home from WWII absolutely against war. All of that tied together to give Kevin the decision making ability that he had, which is, it doesn’t matter, this war. If somebody attacked his home I have no doubt that Kevin would defend it. If someone physically came in and violently threatened what was his Kevin would take a stand and defend it. But he would do it with the means that he needed to make that stop. He wouldn’t just randomly go out and destroy everything to prevent it from happening, and that’s the stand that Kevin is taking about this war.

I think in talking to a lot of the soldiers from Kevin’s unit since the decision of Kevin’s court martial was handed down, from emails that I have received, phone calls that I’ve received from other soldiers, and listening to other soldiers call in to some of the radio interviews I’ve done. That’s the way many more soldiers are thinking than people realize. That they are there to defend their country, they will defend their country, as needed, but they want to be respected for the fact that they are trained. They worked hard to get to where they did in this United States Army. They may have come from difficult means; some of them came out of violent situations to become soldiers. And the discipline they used in our U.S. Military taught them the strength, taught them, now I can shoot center mass on a person and kill them; I can use Karate and I can take them out, I can do all of the things that they have been taught to do, but at the same time they have been taught to use it with restraint. And yet now, their leadership has sent them into something where there is no restraint involved, and that shows disrespect for what those soldiers have done to create themselves into the kind of people that they are.”
Smith: You spoke with Norman Solomon in a piece that appeared in Alternet on July 29th of this year. And in that interview with him you said that it was “hard work to face the truth.” And I want to ask you; of course this is true in a personal way. It’s hard for you and your family. I understand you have children and it’s difficult. But what about some of the larger questions, and I know you think about them because we’ve talked about them a little bit here in a previous interview.

Here we are 60 years after the dropping of the atomic weapon on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and as you look at the possibilities, and as you consider the whole cause for the war as it was described to fight terrorism. What goes through your mind now? Do you watch the news? I mean tell us a little bit about how this argument has ripened for you in an international way?

Monica Benderman: I don’t watch the news because I don’t need to, it’s not, we already know what it is, and you know we can watch where it’s going and be part of it or we can sit and say, ‘oh no, here’s more information.’ The information is there, we know what it is, and to me it’s just a matter of acting on it.

Anger, I think, Kevin and I both felt anger a year ago and there was commentary from us that showed that anger but you have to turn it off pretty quickly because if you get too angry you are defeating the purpose, you are attacking with anger exactly what you are trying to stop which is anger and violence. That’s what it is. So you have to sort of reflect. You have to stop and reflect and say, it’s going to be patience; it’s going to take instruction. It’s going to take a strong stand. I have to stand, not as a pacifist but as someone who will be aggressive in seeking peaceful resolutions. And that’s by knowing, I know that what we have right now isn’t working. Wars for 2000 years haven’t worked. Wars to resolve any type of conflict, all they have done is produce the next generation of people that have become quote unquote “terrorists” become gang members, become people that are willing to pick up a gun, put their bodies in the line of fire, blow themselves up.

It’s time; it’s time to say none of this is working. Trying something new cannot possibly put us in any more difficult situation, so we need to try it.

Smith: Let’s talk about this issue of truth and how we come to understand what is happening, because this country was lied to, U.S. soldiers were lied to, and now the administration seems quite unapologetic about that and has not offered another explanation as to why this war was necessary in their eyes. In the midst of all of that argument about what this war is about, do you find that you are called upon to argue about what the war was really about?

Monica Benderman: I’m not going to argue with them, and I do have a lot of people say, ‘this is what we are going to war for,’ and what do you think? And that’s all politics, and I wasn’t there. I wasn’t involved in why we went to war, I just had a husband who went, came home, said, “I will not be part of it, what I saw was wrong,” and basically, I have to say, war is extremism. That’s what war is, and so we are attacking extremism with extremism. It would seem to me that the only reason that they have an excuse to be able to say that we went to war to counter terrorism is the fact that if you look at it they didn’t do what they were supposed to be doing. There was no personal responsibility for seeing that this country had the security and the protection that it needed to keep anybody from coming and doing what they did that they are now using as a justification for this war.

If we had had our system set up, if we had been taking care of things here, we would not have to go away to take care of terrorists, if that’s what they want to say they are doing, to keep them from coming here. And that to me says something, the very fact that they are trying to justify this by saying, ‘we are going over there to take care of them so they don’t come here.’ Well so now you are telling me that you don’t trust enough in what you have done to protect our country that we’ve got to keep them out of here because heaven knows what they’ll do when they get here. To me all of the money wasted on this war on terror or whatever they want to call it now, would have been better served if they had accepted personal responsibility when they been elected to office, when they had taken those positions, and they had done their job, and they had protected this country here at home. We don’t need to go anywhere else to take care of anybody if we are doing exactly what we need to do right here in this country. If we are taking care of our families, if we are taking care of our people, if we are taking care of our citizenship, if we are putting our money where it needs to go, if we are truly building our police forces. That’s what it’s all about. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with having a standing army that is prepared to defend their county.

But it’s doing nothing but weaken this country by putting the money in and sending that standing army in to heaven knows where to fight terrorists that you know it makes absolutely no sense to me. Let’s build up what we have here. Let’s give our people not a sort of illusionary sense of security, let’s make it a real sense, and show them, you’re safe. People will make a sacrifice for a little bit of safety. It will cost us a lot less money in the long run, our soldiers will be home, and their families will be cared for. We won’t be creating a new generation of terrorists somewhere else in the world that are out to get us because of what we did. We won’t be creating a new generation of hateful people here in this country because their Dad’s aren’t here to raise them, because they died in a war that makes no sense and commit child abuse, the divorce rates are up, they are out racing across killing themselves in motorcycles because they can’t cope with what they’ve seen. Everything about war, this war and any other, is nothing but destructive and dehumanizing. And people have to stop and think you know I’m sorry; I regret everything that has happening to the Iraqis. But it’s happening right here in this country too. It’s happening with the divisiveness of our citizens over ‘is war right, is it not, should I have my yellow ribbon upside down or right side up?’ It’s happening in what’s going on with our soldiers when they come home and the fact that they are not taken care of, their families are not taken care of, and it’s nothing but lip service. This war does nothing except destroy, in all aspects of it, it’s across the world. We don’t have the respect in the world anymore. What good comes of this? Nothing.

Smith: We’re talking with Monica Benderman, and her husband, Kevin Benderman is presently in prison. He is serving 15 months for refusing to return to Iraq and asking to be given conscientious objector status.

In London when there were recent terror attacks there, we saw a fairly surprising number of people describe their emotions right after their attacks. And a number of people did say that they felt that the war in Iraq had led to what has happened. That’s really brought about a new level of discussion. And at the same time, again, there are many reports that have been coming out…one from London, Chatham House, I’m looking at a State Department report, U.S. figures show sharp global rise in terrorism.

This is a Washington post article, April 27th, 2005. “Last year was bad, this year was worse, they are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally we are losing.” And that’s a quote from Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counter-terrorism official.

If this military, sort of knee jerk response, is more militancy, more violence, stepping up the bombings, stepping up their aggression, what kinds of things can you say in response to that. In other words have you been able to articulate for yourself a response to the increase in terrorism and is it still this non-violent approach?

Monica Benderman: It’s just a matter of again, you have to go back to personal responsibility, and people won’t try it because people don’t trust themselves enough to be strong enough to stay committed to it. But when you take that stand and you say I’m not going to be part of this. I will not use violence unless somebody attacks me in violence first. That person is going to think, when you take that stand and you hold it, if you are not attacking them, if you haven’t done something, if their life hasn’t become so far removed from what life could be; that’s what a terrorist atmosphere and a terrorist environment is. Somebody that blows themselves up, they don’t care about their life here on earth anymore. They don’t have anything to live for, all the hope that they would have of seeing that things are working in their live here, chances are that they wouldn’t put a bomb on their body and blow it up. But the fact is they’ve lost the sense of this life being what’s of value. This life, life well lived, that’s what glory is, glory is not in death. But they have gotten to where their mind is twisted and their thinking, because there is no glory here, they haven’t found the glory here, they are trying to reach out and trying to find a heroic act or try to find something in themselves that they can show for this life that they don’t have, so they turn to the hereafter.

‘OK, if I do this and I die I’m going to be glorified for having done this.’ We have to get back to showing people, the glory is in living your life well, in doing things, taking care of people, taking a stand, living for yourself, teaching your children to have hope, to have success, to work hard, to earn and to feel good about what you have earned. If we don’t give other people that chance and if all we are showing is that we are going to take care of our own, and we’ve got all these successes, and yet you go to these other countries where they don’t have that and they feel that desolation, they see the destruction. The more that’s thrown at them, the more destruction that’s thrown at them, the worse they are going to see, it’s going to be a lot easier to strap that bomb on and to blow themselves up because where is their hope? We are taking it away from them. We are just going to continue to create more of that desolation. We are going to continue to create more people who are willing to put those bombs on until we say, stop, wait, let’s rethink this, what is it exactly that we are creating, is it a life well lived? Or, is it that we have the illusionary believe that there is glory in death?

Smith: When you think about what has happened in Iraq what are some of the things that would come to mind about what might make Iraqis feel hopeless as far as the U.S. presence goes?

Monica Benderman: Pick up a paper and read it, you know, go to the internet and read what they say. I read an article yesterday about children in detention camps and the things that are happening to them there. There’s one hundred and seven, I believe, in the detention camps and they talked about some of the things that were happening to those children. That’s hopeless. I thought my goodness, God, what is it going to take to read that article and to even for a minute think that someone could put it down on paper that there is a possibility that that is happening let alone that it is happening. God, what will it take for people to wake up and say, is this humanity? Is this American humanity? Because if it is, I don’t want it, and things like that, the very fact that one picture that stands out of the little girl from the check point when her parents were shot, accidentally or not, the fact is that picture, showing her with the blood on her crying and knowing, I wanted to adopt her. I told Kevin, I want to find her, I want to bring her here and I want to give her love and I want to raise her because somewhere we have to stop and we have to wrap our arms around these people and we have to say look, we care, let me give you a hug and let’s find a way to work this out. Healing is going to take years. Years and years and years, but we’ve got stop first, because every minute that we don’t stop is that much more healing that’s going to have to happen.

Smith: Monica Benderman thanks for sharing your deep thoughts with us and good luck to you in your effort to get Kevin Benderman, your husband an appeal, to see if you can get that 15 month sentence reduced.

Monica Benderman: Thank you.

Smith: Monica Benderman’s husband will serve his 15 months in the brig at Fort Lewis unless his appeal is successful. Many groups and individuals are supporting him. BendermanDefense.Org to express your support for what they are doing and send a letter to Congress. Representative Cynthia McKinney is going to enter the letters into the Congressional Record.

Last week we spoke with John C. Bonifaz, a Boston based attorney specializing in constitutional law. He’s been working to bring about the impeachment of George Bush because of what’s contained in the Downing Street Minutes. I asked John Bonifaz to comment on Kevin Benderman’s sentencing.

John C. Bonifaz: Well I think that the position clearly is one to scare any others who would dare to have the courage of Kevin Benderman. I think he is an American hero for standing up against this war and facing the consequences that he is now facing. But I think that there will be others who have the courage to stand with him and to protest this war. You know, this is a military, it is a volunteer army, and many of the people in the Military, a disproportionate number come from poor communities in this nation and are disproportionately African America and Latino. They join the Military as a way out of an economic trap, you know economic depression they have been facing, only to find that this Military is being essentially privatized by the President himself and used for his own personal decisions with respect to war and peace, without any approval really by the U.S. Congress and without any authority under the U.S. Constitution, and these soldiers who signed up, they did so knowing that they would have to obey the Commander in Chief with respect to his lawful orders. But they also know, and the soldiers in our case knew, that they did not have to go to war for illegal and unconstitutional reasons, and that they have the right to stand up against an illegal and unconstitutional war. The commander in chief himself has the responsibility to obey the law just as much as the soldiers do, and if the Commander in Chief is engaged in violating the Constitution then the soldiers have a right to stand up against that.

Smith: You’ve been listening to Talk Nation Radio. You can also read more of what Monica Benderman has to say at Talk Nation. I’m Dori Smith. This program was produced at WHUS Storrs to listen live, Radio for the People, at the University of Connecticut.

Please pass this along to any and all whom you know.

Thanks go out to Monica Benderman who sent this along to me just now in an e-mail.

PUBLIC AI Index: AMR 51/123/2005
09 August 2005

UA 208/05 Prisoner of conscience

USA Kevin Benderman (m), aged 40, US army sergeant

On 28 July, a US court-martial sentenced Sergeant Kevin Benderman to 15 months’ imprisonment, after he refused to return for a second tour of duty with the US army in Iraq. Amnesty International considers him to be a prisoner of conscience, imprisoned solely for his conscientious objection to the war in Iraq.

Kevin Benderman has served as an army mechanic for 10 years. He served in Iraq from March to September 2003 but refused to deploy to Iraq a second time, citing his moral and religious objections to the war in Iraq, which developed in response to his experiences as a soldier in Iraq.

In his conscientious objector application filed on 28 December 2004, Kevin Benderman explains how his religious studies of both the Bible and the Qu’ran, coupled with his experiences, led him to develop objections to the war. He described the devastation he witnessed as his unit drove to their destination:

“Homes were bombed, people lived in mud huts and drank water from the mud puddles. I could not ignore the little girl standing by the side of the road with her mother. Her arm was burned to her shoulder, and she cried in pain. To be aware of the mass graves throughout the area that we were in, full of bodies of women and children and men, all who had died by the hand of war, maybe not our war, but war.”

Kevin Benderman’s application for conscientious objector status was turned down by the military authorities on 27 April 2005. Amnesty International considers his objection to the war in Iraq to be genuine and credible. The organization also considers that he did take reasonable steps to secure release from military obligations through filing this application.

Kevin Benderman was convicted on charges of missing his brigade’s movements under article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). He will also receive a dishonourable discharge and reduction of rank. His lawyers are appealing against the verdict.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Amnesty International considers a conscientious objector to be any person who, for reasons of conscience or profound conviction, refuses to perform service in the armed forces or any other direct or indirect participation in wars or armed conflicts. This can include refusal to participate in a war because one disagrees with its aims or the manner in which it was being waged, even if one does not oppose taking part in all wars.

Furthermore Amnesty International considers a person to be a prisoner of conscience when they are detained or imprisoned solely because they have been denied or refused their right to register an objection or to perform a genuinely civilian alternative service. They would also be prisoners of conscience if they are imprisoned for leaving the armed forces without authorization for reasons of conscience, if they have taken reasonable steps to secure release from military obligations.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in English or your own language:
- explaining that Amnesty International considers Kevin Benderman to be a prisoner of conscience, imprisoned solely for his conscientious objection to the war in Iraq;
- calling for his immediate and unconditional release.

APPEALS TO:
Secretary of the Army Dr. Francis J. Harvey
101 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-0101, USA
Fax + 1 703 693 5735
Salutation: Dear Secretary

Col John Kidd
Ft Stewart Garrison Commander
42 Wayne Place Ste 204
Ft. Stewart, GA 31314, USA
Email: kidd.john@stewart.army.mil
Fax: + 1 912 767 4951
Salutation: Dear Colonel

COPIES TO:
George W. Bush
The President
The White House
Office of the President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20500, USA
Fax: + 1 202 456 2461
Email: president@whitehouse.gov

The Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington DC 20301, USA
Fax: + 1 703 697 8339
Email via: http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html

and to diplomatic representatives of USA accredited to your country.

PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY. Check with the International Secretariat, or your section office, if sending appeals after 20 September 2005.

When Kevin was serving his tour in Iraq, he was stationed in a small town on the Iranian border at one point. During that time, there were many feelings expressed to Kevin by the Iraqis who lived in the area. Most were resentful of the occupation (invasion, still at that time.) Most told him that they felt that the struggles they were facing were no different than the struggles we face here in America as citizens, and that they would do what they had to to overcome them, no different than we would here. Most told him that they did not want the soldiers there, that they had not asked for America’s help, and that they believed that is how Americans would have felt if another country presumed to attempt to invade our lands using the deposing of our president as justification.

At the same time…these Iraqi people who did not support the war effort in their country, supported my husband and the soldiers who served with him. They invited him to dinner, along with several other soldiers, they brought cold drinks and ice, they brought fresh fruits and vegetables. In exchange, we would send gifts from home for Kevin and his soldiers to exchange with these same people.

Now…if it is not so difficult for the Iraqi people to support our soldiers and not support the war…showing inordinate amounts of compassion and understanding, having met our soldiers and come to know them as well as share their own stories and experiences so that these soldiers could know them…then it doesn’t seem that far of a stretch to understand what supporting the soldiers means…while not supporting the war.

While Kevin was in Iraq…I could not support the war…but I love my husband, and I sent him letters, cards, food, and gifts.. so that he knew that this too would pass, and what he had volunteered for that turned into a lie…would eventually find its way to the truth.

I just don’t think it’s going to get us anywhere by condemning individuals on a community basis now. It seems to me, that if we could just find a way to get this war over, and the soldiers home…THEN…the Iraqi people would be able to actually have their country and begin their healing process, and we would then be able to sort through the stories, the evidence and the actions and know who should be condemned and who should be given help.

To me…with Kevin where he is now, and Cindy fighting as she is…we have to get to the heart of the matter…we have to end this war…the rest will happen once the war is done.

I cannot imagine that there is any good reason for wanting the deaths of anyone person, or persons, more than any others. LIFE has to matter…no matter whose it is…we have to start fighting for LIFE…and when we do…it will be easier to stop wars. In MY opinion.