M i li ta r y C o n s c i en ti o u s Objector Act (MCOA) TO EXTEND AND DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS TO WAR AND VIOLENCE The Limits of Conscience Justification for proposed MCOA STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE Honoring the religious freedom of conscientious objection has improved throughout history as our country has sought to fulfill its founding ideals, but much work needs to be done. We must work as a nation to protect the religious freedom of conscientious objection for our brothers and sisters in uniform. The proposed MCOA seeks to afford them such protection. THE CENTER ON CONSCIENCE AND WAR ...is the only organization focusing exclusively on the rights of conscientious objectors in the United States military. The MCOA is a policy proposal based on their nearly 70 years of experience working with service members on these issues. Their work is supported by over forty nonprofits, professional associations, and denominational groups. Currently, the Department of Defense defines conscientious objection as a “firm, fixed and sincere objection to the participation in war in any form including the bearing of arms, by reason of religious training and or it being against ones moral values, and ethical beliefs.” The first colony to pass a law respecting conscientious objector status was CO Claims 2002-2006 46% Denied 54% Approved Massachusetts, which in 1661 passed legislation that protected “non- resisters.” During the Civil war, the confederacy instituted a draft in 1862, the Union in 1863, though neither side was fond of conscientious objectors. Both sides allowed COs to buy out a draft, and those who Soldier Suicides Total CO Claims 150 113 75 38 0 2001 2004 2006 2008 couldn’t afford it wouldn’t always be accommodated. The draft disappeared for 49 years, but was reinstated during WWI. Only members of "a well-recognized sect or organization ... whose then-existing creed or principles forbid its members to participate in war in any form" were considered conscientious objectors. The absence of justice and equity for these individuals has led many to depression, hysteria, suicide, and even terrorism. It is now known that the Fort Hood shooter had indicated that his objection to the wars in the Middle East were religiously rooted. Other tragic stories are continuing to emerge as service members struggle to find recourse from having to serve in conflicts they deem unjust, a phenomenon known as ‘selective objection,’ which would be protected under the proposed Military Conscientious Objector Act (MCOA). The MCOA would create federally mandated procedures for soldiers filing CO applications, forestall punitive action against them while the application is in process and specify appropriate standards and procedures for their release from the military. The support of ones freedom of speech (including but not limited to religious expression) and other human rights will be protected and honored. Lastly, if the person/ soldier is “conscientiously opposed to the performance of certain duties” in the armed forces, he or she would be entitled to be assigned other duties that are not inconsistent with his or her beliefs. Current military policy allows soldiers the ability to apply for conscientious objector status, however it may be suspended at any time, as it was during the Persian Gulf War. There is also no set time frame for processing a claim, sometimes taking longer than one year; which is an unfair burden on their chain of command and must be changed. By making this proposed policy Federal Law, the dignity of the applicant is preserved and protected. To continue to suppress the religious and moral character of any single person in our representative system of government is to project responsibility for that injustice onto us all. The MCOA will conclusively put an M i li ta r y C o n s c i en ti o u s Objector Act (MCOA) CASE STUDY - TONY ANDERSON (US ARMY) "I don't feel that it's right to take someone else's life," said 19 year-old Tony Anderson, a private in the U.S. Army, in a quiet voice on the phone. "I felt that if it came down to it, I couldn't kill someone, in Iraq or anywhere. Anderson is one who had to insert the question in his mind if what he was about to do was in his moral and ethical beliefs. He refused to deploy to Iraq in July of this year, and was under close restriction by the military and has been threatened with a prison sentence for refusing to fight. He was resistant and had vague thoughts about filing for the conscientious objector because he wasn’t sure if he Current Policy would get accepted and was also discouraged by his CO. Anderson was led to believe that filing a C.O. application would be futile. After going AWOL right before he was about to board his flight to Iraq, he turned himself in, hoping to reduce his punishment. “Tony's refusal to deploy simply underscores that he is a conscientious objector, and it is not his fault that the military denied him the opportunity to go through the application process," said Jeff Paterson, Gulf War resister and Project Director for Courage to Resist, a group that supports war resisters. MCOA Policy Reasoning The ability to apply for CO status can be suspended at any time The right to be reassigned or discharged as a CO will be irrevocable under US Code Current policy exists only as selectively applied, inconsistent military regulation Military branches loosely define their own submission process and timeframe The procedure would be defined (and applicants protected) by federal legislation Lack of oversight places an unfair burden on applicants and robs them of due process Approval authority varies between those who seek either discharge or reassignment Commanding officer would make final decision based upon investigative record Aligns CO discharge/reassignment authority with other forms in military law DATA/RESEARCH The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report of 2007 (referenced below and cited throughout this brief)found there to be less than 500 total CO claims across the entire US Armed Forces for the years 2002-2006. Numerous nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) found this data to be unreliable. Other independent sources (including first hand knowledge of one of the authors of this brief), highlighted by the above case study, indicate the reality that many instances go unreported due to practical refusal by individual units to process claims originating within their ranks. This reflects poorly upon the reliability and verifiability of data compiled and reported by agencies within the US military, and raises legitimate doubt whether investigative bodies therein are able to accurately self-report. Speculation as to why this may be has pointed to the possible (though unrealistic) flood of applicants a more accurate report RECOMMENDATIONS • Congressional representatives should be made aware of this proposed legislation and sign on as sponsors • Constitutional jurisdiction extends to those in uniform; troops are entitled to their rights to religious expression as much as they are to due process under the law • The freedom of conscience correlates directly to mental health; refusing individuals their moral autonomy means affecting the rates of suicide and terrorism • The armed forces cannot be allowed to self-regulate in matters of conscience, they have proven to be partial and unreliable in their execution of formal procedures • Individual service members must be made aware of the rights they do have by putting them in touch with the GI Rights Hotline (girightshotline.org, or 877-447-4487) • The Center on Conscience and War can be supported by donating, volunteering as a counselor, or telling friends and loved ones about their work to support COs Data Sources: Number of Formally Reported Applications for Conscientious Objectors Is Small Relative to the Total Size of the Armed Forces, Government Accountability Office, Sep. 2007; Military Conscientious Objector Act (MCOA), Center on Conscience and War, 2008; Conscientious Objectors, Department of Defense Directive 1300.6, May 2007; Conscientious Objection, Army Regulation 600-43, Aug. 2006; Will Hasan Case Prompt New Look at Objector Rules? National Public Radio, Nov. 2009.