Sunday 11 November 2007

    On Thursday, November 8, Hon. Benjamin Settle, a federal court judge, issued a preliminary injunction halting any further court-martial proceedings of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada and effectively ruling against the Army on virtually every issue in the case. This injunction not only extends the stay until the conclusion of the habeas corpus proceedings, but also addresses the specific request for relief from further legal proceedings, stating, “the remedy sought by Petitioner, while rare, is appropriate.”

    Although the Army issued a press release claiming to “look forward to the opportunity to further explain to the District Court judge the full extent of the protections and safeguards that are afforded to a military accused,” (Seattle Times, 11/9/07), anyone who glances at the court ruling will agree that the Army’s only lingering hope is to appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Judge Settle wrote “for several reasons … it is likely that [Lt. Watada] will succeed on the merits of his double jeopardy claim” (Order, p. 22; a copy of the order is attached). The court held that the military judge acted “irrationally, irresponsibly, precipitately” (Order, page 31) in failing to consider feasible alternatives to a mistrial, and there was no good reason to stop the proceedings.    This ruling came after the repeated refusal of the military appeals courts to free Lt. Watada of the burden of a second court-martial. Lt. Watada’s attorneys have consistently argued that the military should not be allowed a “do-over.” The military judge halted the first court-martial in the wake of admissions by prosecution witnesses regarding Lt. Watada’s integrity and statements that Lt. Watada’s decision not to deploy was an act of conscience.    Prior to the initial court-martial, Lt. Ehren Watada told the Army that he was willing to accept a six month sentence for his refusal to lead his unit to fight in Iraq, explaining that he could not violate the oath he took as an officer to defend his country “against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, and that to fight in Iraq would constitute a war crime.

    The Army responded by trying to make an example of Lt. Watada by demanding a six-year sentence. They took away his defenses, one by one. They continued to add extra charges.

    Finally, on the day of trial, as I watched the proceedings in the company of soldiers, media, and other civilians, the military judge Lt. Col. John Head took away Lt. Watada’s final expert witness, eliminating critical testimony on military law and tradition and making a fair trial for the lieutenant virtually impossible. To make matters worse, Judge Head allowed the government to call a rebuttal witness, Professor Richard Swain, even though there was no longer any expert witness to rebut.

    This was to prove to be the Army’s undoing. After Lt. Watada’s superior officers gave unexpectedly favorable evidence on the lieutenant’s integrity, Professor Swain testified that if officers such as Lt. Watada make the determination that they are being asked to commit war crimes “they have to be right. If they’re not right, they have to expect to be held accountable.”

    Following the testimony of Professor Swain, the prosecutor, Capt. Van Sweringen, was overheard to have said to one of his aides in the courtroom that “Dr. Swain was a disaster.”

    The prosecution rested its case at the end of the day on February 6. The stage was set on the following morning for Lt. Watada to take control of the proceedings with a dramatic account of why he reasonably believed that the Iraq War was illegal. It was clear to everyone in the courtroom that the defense had made its essential points during the presentation of the government’s case, and that Lt. Watada was going to command the attention of the gathered mass media.

    Lt. Watada’s attorney then provided a proposed jury instruction to Judge Head offering this argument: that it was reasonable to believe that the Iraq War was illegal. It was apparent the judge did not want Lt. Watada to use this trial as his pulpit. He took a prolonged recess, while courtroom observers tapped their feet.

    Upon his return, Judge Head seized on this proposed jury instruction and argued that there was confusion about a pretrial agreement that governed the evidence to be used at trial, claiming that Lt. Watada had the mistaken impression that he had the defense of “reasonable belief that the war was illegal” as he had “confessed” to his guilt! Judge Head concluded that due to this supposed confusion, the trial had to stop.

    In my view, Judge Head’s order was not only nonsense, but intentionally designed to prevent Lt. Watada from challenging the Iraq War to the mass media in a dramatic fashion. It was identical to the treatment that Fathers Phil and Dan Berrigan and their allies have received in American courts for the last forty years in their challenges to American military policy by committing minor property offenses by symbolically “beating swords into plowshares.” In politically sensitive cases, judges go to great lengths to prevent criminal defendants from explaining why they resisted unlawful government acts.

    Judge Settle’s order scolds Judge Head like a schoolboy in disgrace. The order carefully illustrates that no one was confused about the pretrial agreement. The record reflects that the government and the defense agreed on that point. Nor did Lt. Watada ever “confess” his supposed guilt. To drive the point home, the order adds that even confusion or confession would not have been grounds to stop the trial. The order goes on to emphasize that there was no manifest necessity to stop the trial, and that Judge Head never weighed any feasible alternatives.

    The Army made an example of Lt. Watada. The lieutenant is feared by Judge Head and the Army prosecutors. He portrays the courage it takes to honor one’s oath to defend the Constitution.

Additional Resources

Contact your Member of Congress
Pence Announces Abortion Provider Prohibition Act

In addition to Brownback and Vitter, the following senators signed the letter: Senators Jim Bunning (R-KY), John Barrasso (R-WY), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), James Inhofe (R-OK), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Trent Lott (R-MS), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and John Thune (R-SD).

Following is full text of the letter.

We write to urge you to suspend funding in all future Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations bills for organizations that promote abortion. While an amendment to this effect was not adopted in the U.S. Senate last month, we believe recent findings warrant such a suspension pending further investigation.

One recipient of such funding is the Planned Parenthood Federation of America which receives more than $300 million in taxpayer funding each year. According to a 107-count complaint filed in Kansas Johnson County District Court two weeks ago, Planned Parenthood is accused of performing illegal late-term abortions in violation of state law. It is also accused of falsifying documents and failing to comply with medical reporting requirements.

Unfortunately this is just one example of a troubling trend. Too often we hear about negligent medical practice or inadequate reporting from abortion clinics that lack sufficient oversight. One of the many reasons to withhold federal funding from groups that promote abortion are these troubling accusations of negligent medical practice. Most recently, amendment S.A.3330 to H.R.3043, the Labor,
Health and Human Services Appropriations bill would have corrected this problem by denying federal funding to groups that promote abortion.

While amendment S.A.3330 was not adopted by the Senate, we believe an amendment to that effect should be reconsidered in the future given this troubling evidence of wrongdoing and neglectful medical practice. While we continue to have a rigorous debate in this country about abortion, we should be able to come to some fundamental
agreements. We should not use tax dollars to subsidize abortion clinics  particularly when there are serious concerns regarding their compliance with state law and medical standards.

Brownback is a member of the Senate Judiciary and Appropriations Committees.

-30-

Sam Brownback

United States Senator – Kansas

303 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

(202) 224-6521

http://brownback.senate.gov <http://brownback.senate.gov/>

 New Evangelical

 Presbyterianism

By

Lillian Kwon

Christian Post Reporter

Mon, Oct. 29 2007 02:03 PM ET

Presbyterians discontent with the liberal direction of their national denomination opened discussions on Sunday about a new approach to being the Church of Jesus Christ.

The New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC), a network of some 200 Presbyterian churches unhappy with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), is holding its fourth convocation in Fair Oaks, Calif., to determine the next steps toward remaining faithful Presbyterians.

Several congregations have already voted this year to disaffiliate with the PC(USA) – the largest Presbyterian denomination in the country – and more are expected to leave in the coming years.

Conflict began in 2001 when the PC(USA) would not affirm the singular saving Lordship of Jesus Christ. Further controversy was stirred when the denomination adopted a resolution in 2006 that gave some leeway to churches for homosexual ordination.

Although the PC(USA) still upholds the constitutional standard requiring fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness for ordination, one conservative believes the denomination isn’t walking the talk.

“The written standards of the denomination are precisely correct, but they are largely ignored,” the Rev. Michael Neubert of the Presbytery of Southeastern Illinois has stated.

About 30 of the nearly 11,000 PC(USA) congregations have voted to leave the denomination since 2006. In June, the smaller and more conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church voted to create the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery to accept the increasing number of departing congregations seeking membership.

The non-geographic presbytery, scheduled to be inaugurated during this week’s NWAC convocation, is to run under a newly designed constitution based on a grassroots polity that recognizes the local congregation as the primary decision-making group, according to the Rev. Dr. D. Dean Weaver, co-moderator of the NWAC and senior pastor of Memorial Park Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh. His congregation – the largest Presbyterian church in the Pittsburgh presbytery – voted in June to split from the PC(USA).

It is time to “realign ourselves with other Presbyterians in our country and around the world who believe the same things we do and have the same passion for evangelism and for missions,” said Weaver at the time of the split.

NWAC congregations have been offered the option of either “realigning” with the newly created presbytery or continuing to remain within the PC(USA) and being a faithful witness there, according to a proposal passed earlier this year during the network’s winter convocation.

“We’re not just leaving to go to another denomination,” Weaver has noted. “We’re actually realigning to help join with other brothers and sisters in Christ who want to form a whole new type of missional and evangelical Presbyterianism.”

The New Wineskins Convocation opened on Reformation Sunday, which commemorates the history of the Reformed tradition, and will conclude Oct. 30.

“The New Wineskins convocation will provide us with a unique opportunity to not only consider what it means to be missional but to ‘worshipfully work’ toward the reformation of our Lord’s Church!” expressed an NWAC statement.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071029/29882_Dissidents_Open_Talks_on_New_Evangelical_Presbyterianism.htm

God, make me brave for life: oh, braver than this.
Let me straighten after pain, as a tree straightens after the rain,
Shining and lovely again.
God, make me brave for life; much braver than this.
As the blown grass lifts, let me rise
From sorrow with quiet eyes,
Knowing Thy way is wise.
God, make me brave, life brings
Such blinding things.
Help me to keep my sight;
Help me to see aright
That out of dark comes light.

~Author Unknown~

 
Life Dynamics says ailing abortion industry relying on ‘universal health care’ to jack up profits

By Meg Jalsevac

DENTON, Texas, October 26, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – According to Mark Crutcher, President of Life Dynamics, the abortion industry in America, particularly abortion giant Planned Parenthood (PP), is experiencing both a financial and a service demand crisis. In an entry entitled “On the Trail to Rodham and Gomorrah” on his Life Dynamics blog, Crutcher asserts that abortion providers are looking to the likes of Hillary Clinton to bolster the floundering abortion industry.

Life Dynamics is a pro-life website that offers many resources to assist the pro-life movement throughout America. They are most notably known for their part in exposing those involved in the illegal sale of body parts taken from aborted babies. The motto of the site as stated on their website is: “Pro-life: Without compromise. Without exception. Without apology.”

Crutcher begins his article drawing attention to the new abortion facilities that PP has deceptively constructed while using false names to apply for the necessary building permits. The most notable example is the PP abortion mega-center that was recently constructed in Aurora, Illinois under the company name of Gemini, Inc.

Crutcher claims that the motives behind such secrecy are much more crucial and worthy of note than the actual secrecy itself.

To explain, Crutcher’s article reveals that, despite the few newly opened facilities, the number of abortion facilities has steadily declined since the 1980′s due to their inability to retain staff.

While the abortion industry frequently blames their staff retention issues on fear of violence directed at abortion staff from pro-life forces, Crutcher dispels this as a mere myth by quoting statistics from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health that show that “during the period of the greatest violence against abortionists in history, more farmers and twice as many hairdressers were murdered on the job than abortion clinic workers and abortionists combined.”

Instead, Crutcher partially blames the abortion industry’s collapse on the public stigma that is naturally associated with the killing of an unborn child.

“The abortion lobby had always counted on legalization to erase the stigma of abortion, but that never happened. What they refused to accept was that abortion is like pornography and prostitution in that the stigma is related to the act itself and not to its legal status. That means the stigma is never going to go away. Today, the abortion industry finally seems resigned to this and has decided that the stench of abortion is something they will just have to live with.”

Crutcher continues to give an in-depth analysis of the grim financial situation that abortion providers find themselves facing today. Due to statistics that show that when the cost of abortion is raised, the number of abortions plummet, most abortion facilities still charge between $300 – $500 to perform an abortion – almost the exact price that an abortion cost when it was first legalized in the 1970′s.

“They need higher abortion prices to solve their financial problems, but the lowered abortion rate produced by these higher prices would threaten their political survivability… …The problem they now face is that the cost of doing business has risen dramatically during that time. So while a $350 abortion may have been profitable in 1973 dollars, it may not be profitable in today’s dollars.”

Crutcher warns that PP’s key motivation in constructing new facilities despite these figures is the universal health care plans proposed by the leading Democratic contenders in the current presidential campaign. Crutcher posits that, in the advent of universal health care coverage of abortion, abortion prices will skyrocket with the assurance that tax-payer funded coverage will foot the bill.

“That is also why the nation’s death merchants see Hillary Care as their salvation. They are relying on socialized medicine to solve their current financial problems by converting every $350 private-pay abortion into a $3000 government-pay abortion. The icing on the cake is that, since the customers will be offered these abortions for “free,” the abortion rate is guaranteed to skyrocket.”

The universal health plans proposed thus far in the campaign corroborate Crutcher’s assertions. Senator Obama and Elizabeth Edwards, speaking for her husband at a campaign event, pledged to include “reproductive services” in their universal health care plans. Both campaigns confirmed that these services would include abortion.

Senator Clinton’s proposed plan does not explicitly refer to abortion coverage but instead alludes to ‘family planning’ coverage for all women, a phrase frequently used by political pundits to cloak the stigma of abortion. Clinton is well known as a self-proclaimed champion of the Prevention First Act which provided ‘reproductive health’ services to low income women and mandated prescription contraceptive coverage by insurance companies.

See Mark Crutcher’s entire article at:
http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/…

See Previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

THE WAR AGAINST LIFE DYNAMICS HAS BEGUN
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/mar/00032203.html

Largest Ever Planned Parenthood Abortion Mill Threatens to Open Near Chicago
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/aug/07082209.html ;

“Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.” – Luke 10:20

The notice arrived wrinkled, but readable, as it tumbled out of my daughter’s backpack. I picked it up and glanced over the bold words: School Pictures Tomorrow! My daughter, eyeing what I was reading, shouted across the room, “Mom, you don’t have to buy the pictures, just get me the memory book!”

The book she desired contained pictures of all the classes, teachers, and staff members of her school. It also included pictures of individual students, clubs, game highlights, choir concert snap shots, student body officers, and all the activities that took place during the previous school year. When my daughters receive this coveted book, the first thing they usually do is look to see if their names are written in the index. Finding their names is one of the first joys that this book brings.

God has a very special book in Heaven, too. It probably will not have any pictures in it, but it is of far greater value than even the most treasured book here on earth. God’s book holds the records of all who have given their lives to Him and have been saved through the Blood of Jesus. It tells of those who have been faithful in His service and shared with others how to be saved. As Christians, one of our greatest joys is knowing that our names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. When the Lord opens that book someday, those written inside will be given life everlasting.

If we were to thumb through the pages of the Book of Life today, would we find our names? It is of utmost importance that they be found there!

~Apostolic Faith Church~

 the Military?

by Laurence M. Vance
by Laurence M. Vance  

I have maintained in a number of articles over the past several years that no Christian – whether he terms himself a conservative, an evangelical, a fundamentalist, or a Bible-believer – has any business in the U.S. military, including the National Guard and the chaplaincy.

Although the same goes for anyone else who names the name of Christ, I have always emphasized these particular Christian groups because of the unholy relationship that exists between them and the military.

But what about American Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus? Would it be okay if they joined the military? And what about the members of the various cults and sects that abound in the United States? Is the military a good place for them? And let’s not forget about atheists, agnostics, infidels, witches, Satanists, and the irreligious. Should they be discouraged from joining the military as well?

Should anyone join the military?

Here are seven reasons why I think that no one, regardless of his religion or lack of it, should join today’s military.

1. Joining the military may cost you your limbs, your mind, or even your life. There is no end in sight to the Iraq war. Over 3,800 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Many thousands more have been wounded. Hundreds of these have had limbs amputated. An increasing number of soldiers are committing suicide. Untold numbers suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Some soldiers will spend the rest of their lives unable to work or drive a car. Others will live out their days as physical and/or emotional basket cases. What makes you think that you or one of your loved ones will not be sent to Iraq or will emerge unscathed in body and mind? Don’t trust the recruiter who tells you that you won’t be sent to Iraq. They are getting so desperate for cannon fodder that they are blatantly lying to potential recruits.

2. Joining the military may have an adverse effect on your family. The breakup of marriages and relationships because of soldiers being deployed to Iraq and elsewhere is epidemic. Multiple duty tours and increased deployment terms are the death knell for stable families. It is devastating to a young child to be deprived of his father for months at a time. It is a national disgrace that we send single mothers in the National Guard off to war who must then leave their small children in the care of friends or relatives. Yes, I know they joined the military of their own free will, but it still shouldn’t be done. What makes you think that the military will never send you away from your family for an extended period of time? You know that the possibility exists, so why gamble with your family? And then, as if being away from your family wasn’t bad enough on you and them, some soldiers come home with such physical and/or mental problems that they are unable to return to civilian life. Debt, doctors, and divorce lawyers soon consume their finances. It is U.S. military families that are the unseen victims of the war in Iraq.

3. Joining the military does not mean that you will be defending the country. The purpose of the U.S. military should be to defend the United States. Period. Yet, one of the greatest myths ever invented is that the current U.S. military somehow defends our freedoms. First of all, our freedoms are not in danger of being taken away by foreign countries; if they are taken away it will be by our own government. It is not a country making war on us that we need to fear, it is our government making war on the Bill of Rights. And second, how is stationing troops in 150 different regions of the world on hundreds of U.S. military bases defending our freedoms? It is not the purpose of the U.S. military to change regimes, secure the borders of other countries, or spread democracy at gunpoint. The Department of Defense should first and foremost be the Department of Homeland Security.

4. Joining the military means that you will be helping to carry out an evil, reckless, and interventionist U.S. foreign policy. For many, many years now, U.S. foreign policy has resulted in the destabilization and overthrow of governments, the assassination of leaders, the destruction of industry and infrastructure, the backing of military coups, death squads, and drug traffickers, imperialism under the guise of humanitarianism, support for corrupt and tyrannical governments, interference in the elections of other countries, taking sides or intervening in civil wars, engaging in provocative naval actions under the guise of protecting freedom of navigation, thousands of dubious covert actions, the dismissal of civilian casualties as collateral damage, the United States being the arms dealer to the world, and the United States bribing and bullying itself around the world as the world’s policeman, fireman, social worker, and busybody.

5. Joining the military means that you will be expected to unconditionally follow orders. There will be no questioning of the purpose or morality of an order. You will often times not be in a position to know whether an order is in fact dubious or immoral. You will be expected to, without reservation, drop that bomb, fire that weapon, launch that missile, and throw that grenade, as well as kill people and destroy their property. Do you question whether that prisoner should be transported to some secret CIA prison to undergo “enhanced interrogation techniques”? Too bad. Do you question whether the United States should have troops in 150 different places around the globe? Sorry. Do you question whether the United States should launch a preemptive strike? Banish the thought. Do you question whether the United States should effect a regime change? Keep your mouth shut. But wouldn’t military effectiveness unravel if the troops didn’t obey orders? Let’s hope so. Every act of American military intervention was made possible because the troops blindly followed the orders of their superiors. If they had refused to do anything that was not related to actually defending the country, then there would not have been any overseas deployments, land mines buried, bombs dropped, preemptive strikes, or missiles launched. The result of this would have been not only less anti-American sentiment, but fewer terrorists, fewer dead foreign civilians, and fewer dead American soldiers.

6. Joining the military means that you will be pressured to make a god out of the military. Am I exaggerating? Here is a note I recently received from a veteran:

Mr. Vance,

I, perhaps, have some insights why soldiers or Christian soldiers do not refuse to fight.

I enlisted in the Marines when I was 17. I went to boot camp 2 months after graduating from a Jesuit high school in 88. I served until 94. In that time I graduated from boot camp as Series Honorman, was meritoriously promoted twice, was platoon high shooter a few times, and volunteered for as much advance and rear party (so I could stay in the field) duties I could. At the time, I was not a Christian and worshipped the USMC.

Boot camp was an interesting experience. They instill ones duty to first the Marines (before I went to combat, I made sure I had a good picture of me standing proudly in front of the Marine Colors) then your comrades. At the end of boot camp we would have done anything for the drill instructors and our comrades. There was a saying, ours is not to reason why, but to do and die. There are few people that have the where-with-all to go against this. Plus, the intellectual foundation required for resistance (which, even though I went to a Jesuit prep school, I didn’t have) is constantly attacked. The honor of our former Marines and duty to current Marines must be upheld.

The attitude, when in these situations, is that you must make “them” objects. Otherwise you might hesitate and it could get yourself or your comrades killed. This attitude pretty much trumps everything else.

Luckily, I got out, found Antiwar.com and then LewRockwell.com.

Best Regards.

SM

Idolatry is certainly something that any non-religious person should be averse to.

7. Joining the military means that you may be put into a position where you will have to kill or be killed. What guarantee do you have that you will always be in a non-combat role? You are responsible for the “enemy” soldiers you kill as they defend their homeland against U.S. aggression. It may soothe your conscience if you attempt to justify your actions by maintaining it is self-defense, but it is hardly self-defense when you travel thousands of miles away to engage in an unnecessary and unjust war. You are responsible for the civilians you kill. Dismissing them as collateral damage doesn’t change the fact that you killed someone who was no threat to you or your country. You are responsible for every soldier and civilian you kill: not Bush, not Cheney, not Rumsfeld, not Gates, not your commanding officers, and not Wolfowitz, Feith, Hadley, Perle, Abrams, Tenet, Powell, Rice, and the other architects of the Iraq War. Bush and company will not be firing a single shot. You will be expected to do their dirty work and live with it the rest of your life. “Thou shalt not kill” is not just a tenet of the Judeo-Christian tradition; it is part of the moral code of every civilization, pagan or religious.

Should anyone join the military? Certainly not today’s military. And until a major change in U.S. foreign policy occurs, not tomorrow’s military either. So be all you can be: Just don’t be it in the U.S. military.

October 26, 2007

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. His latest publication is War, Foreign Policy, and the Church.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance124.html