Prominent Americans Ask Military to Refuse to Attack Iran

[davidswanson]

Country music legend Willie Nelson, literary icon Gore Vidal, Gold Star Mother Cindy Sheehan, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, retired U.S. Army Colonel Ann Wright, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega, author and radio host Thom Hartmann, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Rabbi Steven Jacobs, and dozens of other prominent Americans have signed a letter asking the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all U.S. military personnel to refuse orders to launch an aggressive war on Iran.

The letter has been posted as a petition for others to sign at http://www.dontattackiran.org

The text of the letter follows:

ATTENTION: Joint Chiefs of Staff and all U.S. Military Personnel:

Do not attack Iran.
Any preemptive U.S. attack on Iran would be illegal.
Any preemptive U.S. attack on Iran would be criminal.

We, the citizens of the United States, respectfully urge you, courageous men and women of our military, to refuse any order to preemptively attack Iran, a nation that represents no serious or immediate threat to the United States. To attack Iran, a sovereign nation of 70-million people, would be a crime of the highest magnitude.

Legal basis for our Request – Do not attack Iran:

The Nuremberg Principles, which are part of US law, provide that all military personnel have the obligation not to obey illegal orders. The Army Field Manual 27-10, sec. 609 and UCMJ, art. 92, incorporate this principle. Article 92 says: "A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the law of the United States …"

Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States. The United States is a party and signatory to the United Nations Charter, of which Article II, Section 4 states, "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…" As Iran has not attacked the United States, and as the U.S. is a party and signatory to the Charter, any attack on Iran by the U.S. would be illegal under not only international law but under the U.S. Constitution which recognizes our treaties as the Supreme Law of the Land. When you joined the military, you took an oath to defend our Constitution.

Following the orders of your government or superior does not relieve you from responsibility under international law. Under the Principles of International Law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, complicity in the commission of war crime is a crime under international law.

Background:

The Bush Administration's charges against Iran have not been proven. Neither the development of nuclear weapons, nor providing assistance to Iraq would, if proven, constitute justification for an illegal war.

An attack on Iran might prompt the formidable Iranian military to attack U.S. troops stationed in Iraq. Thousands of our soldiers might be killed or captured as prisoners of war. A U.S. attack against Iranian nuclear facilities could also mean the deaths, from radiation poisoning, of tens of thousands of innocent Iranian civilians. The people of Iran have little control over their government, yet would suffer tremendously should the U.S. attack. Bombing raids would amount to collective punishment, a violation of the Geneva Convention, and would surely sow the seeds of hatred for generations to come. Children make up a quarter of Iran's population.

Above all, we ask you to look at the record of our actions in Iraq, which U.S. intelligence admits is “a cause celebre for jihadists” – a situation that did not exist before we attacked. We must face the fact that our rash use of military solutions has created more enemies, and made American families less safe. Diplomacy, not war, is the answer.

Know the Risks Involved in Refusing an Illegal Order or Signing This Statement:

We knowingly and willingly make this plea, aware of the risk that, in violation of our First Amendment rights, we could be charged under remaining sections of the unconstitutional Espionage Act or other unconstitutional statute, and that we could be fined, imprisoned, or barred from government employment.

We make this plea, also aware that you have no easy options. If you obey an illegal order to participate in an aggressive attack on Iran, you could potentially be charged with war crimes. If you heed our call and disobey an illegal order you could be falsely charged with crimes including treason. You could be falsely court martialed. You could be imprisoned. (To talk to a lawyer or to learn more about possible consequences, contact The Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, Courage to Resist, Center on Conscience and War, Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild 415-566-3732, or the GI Rights Hotline at 877-447-4487.) **

Final request:

Our leaders often say that military force should be a last resort. We beg you to make that policy a reality, and refuse illegal orders to attack Iran. We promise to support you for protecting the American public and innocent civilians abroad.

Our future, the future of our children and their children, rests in your hands.

You know the horrors of war. You can stop the next one.

Sincerely,

Daniel Ellsberg, Thom Hartmann, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Rabbi Steven Jacobs, Cynthia McKinney, Willie Nelson, Cindy Sheehan, Norman Solomon, Elizabeth de la Vega, Gore Vidal, Ann Wright,
James Abourezk, former U.S. Senator, (D) South Dakota
Stacy Bannerman, Author, "When the War Came Home", Military Families Speak Out Charter Board member
John Bonifaz, constitutional attorney and author of "Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush."
Amy Branham, Gold Star Mother of
Sgt. Jeremy R. Smith, US Army Reserves, Nov. 1981-Feb. 2004
Blase Bonpane, Ph.d, Director OFFICE OF THE AMERICAS
David Clennon, Actor/activist
Tim Carpenter, Executive Director, Progressive Democrats of America
Daniel Ellsberg, author of "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers."
David Cobb, 2004 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Jeff Cohen, author/media critic
Elizabeth de la Vega, former federal prosecutor and author of U.S. v. George W. Bush
Karen Dolan, Director, Cities for Progress/Cities for Peace
Anne Feeney, activist/folksinger or Local 1000, AFM
Mike Ferner, Navy corpsman; Secretary, Veterans for Peace
Bob Fertik, President Democrats.com
Laura Flanders, Radio Host on Air America
Bruce K. Gagnon, Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
Lila Garrett, KPFK Host of “Connect the Dots”
Liberty Godshall, writer, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council
Hon. Jackie Goldberg, California Assembly Member (AD 45), retired.
Kevin Alexander Gray, writer, and organizer with the Harriet Tubman Freedom House Project
Representative Betty Hall, Hillsborough District 5, New Hampshire General Court
David L. Harris, MD
Tom Hayden
Thom Hartmann, author and Air America radio host
Valerie Heinonen, o.s.u., Ursulines of Tildonk for Justice and Peace
Jenny Heinz , member of CodePink, member of Granny Peace Brigade Rabbi Steven Jacobs, Los Angeles
Michael Jay, Steering Committee, Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles
Charles Jenks, co-founder and editor of traprockpeace.org
Justice Through Music
Antonia Juhasz, author, The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time
Jerry Kass, playwright and professor at Columbia University
Dr, Nazir Khaja ,Chairman, Islamic Information Service, Los Angeles, CA.
Mimi Kennedy, National Chair, Progressive Democrats of America
Rabbi Michael Lerner, Editor, Tikkun and Chair, the Network of Spiritual Progressives
Summer Lipford, Gold Star Mother,NC 28677
David Lindorff, Author, The Case for Impeachment
Alice Lynn, Delegate, California Democratic Party (41st AD)
Ben Manski, Executive Director, Liberty Tree
Ray McGovern, Army infantry/intelligence officer, 1962-64; CIA analyst 1964-90.
Cynthia Mckinney, former Congresswoman
Barbara Mills-Bria, Be The Change-USA
Bill Moyer, Executive Director, Backbone Campaign
Willie Nelson, Entertainer, Peace Activist Annie Nelson, Sustainable Biodiesel/Peace Activist
Honorable Eric Oemig – Washington State Senator
Geov Parrish, Executive Director Peace Action of Washington
Jacob Park, Founder, A28.
Brad Parker, Officer of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Bill Perry, Director, Delaware Valley Veterans For America
Gareth Porter, investigative journalist and historian
Marcus Raskin, member of National Security Council Staff under President Kennedy
Dorothy Reik, President, Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains
Coleen Rowley, retired FBI Agent and former Chief Division Counsel of Minneapolis Division of the FBI
Bill Scheurer, Editor, PeaceMajority Report
Randi Scheurer, IL-Dist. 8, Congressional Candidate
Cindy Sheehan, Gold Star Families for Peace
Alice Slater, Abolition 2000 New York
Norman Solomon, Author and syndicated columnist
David Swanson, Afterdowningstreet.org
John Stauber, Co-author, "Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq"
Jonathan Tasini, PDA NY
Ethel Tobach, Ph. D., member of Psychologists for Social Responsibility
Tina Richards CEO Grassroots Americaredith, Gold Star Mother, Proud Mom of Lt Ken Ballard- KIA 5.30.04
Gore Vidal, Author
Marcy Winograd, President, Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles
Ann Wright, US Army Colonel (Retired) and US diplomat who resigned in March, 2003 in opposition to the Iraq war.
Kevin Zeese on behalf of Voters for Peace and Democracy Rising
Velvet Revolution

** These resources are publicly available, and our offering them does not indicate that these organizations support this petition.

The letter has been posted as a petition for others to sign at http://www.dontattackiran.org

[Captain Hilts]

1. The military is not permitted to pick and choose which civilian orders to follow. nt

[Hissyspit]

3. Actually they can do whatever the hell they want to.

They may to go to prison for the rest of their life, but they can still decide to not do something.

Here's some stuff rom the Military Uniform Code of Conduct on refusal to obey illegal orders, applicable or not:

Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice says soldiers are under a duty to obey lawful orders of senior officers over them. The same article states that "patently illegal orders are not to be obeyed." New's legal counsel, Col. Ron Ray said, "the principle that comes down through military law that was codified in the Nuremberg trial, is that soldiers have a duty to disobey illegal orders. It is no defense to say I was ordered by senior officers to do this illegal act."

FAQ # 1 - What is an illegal order? What is a "Manifestly" or "Patently" illegal order?
The history of liability for following military orders contravening the laws of war can be traced back to the Treaty of Versailles, the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals and, later, to the Geneva Convention. In general, it means that prisoners' lives and wellbeing are protected from cruelty and death, as are those of unarmed civilians, refugees, medical personnel; it protects hospitals, places of prayer, etc.: any order to the contrary is not only illegal, it is manifestly illegal.

A member of the armed forces is constrained by military law to obey orders – otherwise, the system and chain of command would collapse. People of all kinds and views serve in the armed forces and not every order will be to their way of thinking – it may even go against their conscience. A soldier must, under practically every circumstance, obey an order: his or her refusal to do so may incur serious consequences in terms of security, operational success, and personal responsibility at trial.

There is a difference between an illegal order and a manifestly illegal order. An illegal order can be in contravention of general legality, such as orders to make improper use of facilities, go beyond the speed limit in a military vehicle. A manifestly or patently illegal order applies to the protection of persons (civilians, prisoners, medical personnel and clergy), medical facilities, places of prayer, monuments, etc. (this list is not exhaustive). The US distinguishes a patently illegal order as one which orders someone to commit a crime.

Anyone serving in the armed forces should be instructed on how to make such judgments and what the penalties are: however, to succeed in a military operation, or to save lives, it may be necessary to drive a vehicle at above the speed limit - and a soldier would be bound to obey, if there were no other circumstances - such as risk to other lives.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Civilian control of the military is an important basis of our democracy. nt

[mmonk]

14. However, they are not required to follow illegal and unconstitutional

orders.

[dugggy]

45. Since IWR was passed by a majority in congress and

signed into law by the Bushler, it would be difficult
to prove in a court of law that war in Iraq is illegal.
Foolish, stupid yes. Illegal? I have my doubts.

[knight_of_the_star]

31. But the military is also required to defend the Constitution and do what is right

This has been in the UCMJ for a while and was hammered home as a result of Nuremberg. Soldiers have a positive duty NOT to obey orders that are manifestly illegal, immoral, or criminal. What do you do with civilian control of the military if the civilians in charge have gone off the deep-end?

[jmp]

12. They can refuse any unlawful order.

In fact they have a duty to refuse to follow any unlawful order.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. In fact, the entire Iraq War has been one long unlawful order

One of the things the Nazis were condemned for at Nuremberg was "waging aggressive war."

That's what the Busheviks have done. Under the Nuremberg principles, a soldier who refuses to take part in the Iraq War is a hero.

[Nederland]

30. As was Korean War, the Vietnam War,

...and every military action taken by the US since WWII.

Except Afghanistan.

Only with Afghanistan could you (possibly) argue that we were attacked first and defending ourselves, and even that is doubtful to many.

[dugggy]

46. IWR was passed by congress and signed by the prez

My guess is that makes it legal. Why not just cut funding
instead of fighting in court which will most likely lose?

If the elected congress had balls and honesty, they would
cut off all Iraq war funding after 1 month worth of funds.
Troops can easily be withddrawn in a month, SAFELY!

[rAVES]

15. Vee Vere just Following orders!!!

[coalition_unwilling]

41. If the orders are illegal, they are required to disobey them -n/t

[Ian David]

2. While I appreciate the sentiment, I still have to ask... is that REALLY legal?

I mean, the original message lays out an argument saying that it's legal.

Nuremberg Laws, Geneva Conventions, etc.

But would it be upheld in a U.S. Court of Law, even without all the Bush-appointees?

[liberal N proud]

4. If the military refused they would hold court martial trials for those who refuse

It wouldn't make the US Courts per say

[davidswanson]

5. Want an Answer?

Watch Ehren Watada's trial next week.

[ClayZ]

6. Lt. Ehren Watada on Citizen Responsibility Feb 3rd 2007

If you have not heard this speech, it is amazing!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cs4YUiQ-DI


K and R

[UncleSepp]

32. Maybe, maybe not... that's the point of Civil Courage

Civil courage isn't courage if the practicioner of it knows from the outset that his or her butt is covered. We expect and we demand that individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines refuse illegal orders: we train them to refuse illegal orders, and we prosecute them when they do not. The same principle ought to apply to private and general and Chief of Staff. Will it? Who knows? That's where the courage comes in.

What would have happened if the Kriegsmarine refused its orders? What if the Heer followed, and refused its orders? The resisters would have been executed with certainty, but would we have scorned them for their stupidity in place of scorning them for their complicity, or would we have seen them as heroes? Would it have given hope to other dissenters? Would it have changed the outcome of the war? Would it have changed how the rest of the world saw Germans, or how Germans saw themselves?

[robinlynne]

7. wow.

[Tyler Durden]

9. FOLLOWING AN ILLEGAL ORDER IS A PROSECUTABLE WAR CRIME.

Following an order to wage AGGRESSIVE WAR is a crime under the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Protocols.

Technically, our ENTIRE ARMED FORCES are already in violation of these statutes, although I would think The Hague would be satisfied with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeldt in the dock.

Our own constitution gives international treaties and conventions signed in agreement by our government the full impact of United States Laws and Statutes.

[coalition_unwilling]

42. Actually, I think only those with "command responsibility" are

liable under Geneva and Nuremburg. If those with command responsibility tell those under them that orders are lawful, i.e., that invading Iraq was legal, then the legal liability lands on those with command responsibility.

This is why ordinary enlisted soldiers in the Wehrmacht (the German army) were not prosecuted for aggressive war after World War II, but Goring and others in command were.

[Psyop Samurai]

10. Now, that's putting it on the line!

These are true patriots.

:patriot:

[Canuckistanian]

11. Whoa. That's a different concept.

Appealing directly to Pentagon officials, what an idea.

That's a mighty impressive list of names. They can't blow this off as a gathering of moonbats. There are some pretty credible and influential names there.

It's almost like they're ASKING for a 'refusal of orders'.

Hardcore.

[jmp]

13. Now we're asking for MORE sacrifice from our soldiers ...

Because our elected officials don't have the balls to stop Bush themselves.

Nice.

[annabanana]

16. done!. . . k&r. . . . n/t

[Zandor]

17. It looks like a roll call of the irrelevant

I don't see one Democratic office holder on it.

[nashville_brook]

18. how are these people irrelevant?

[Zandor]

19. What power do they have?

There isn't a person of substance on the list, with good reason. Advocating military personnel defy orders is shaky ground, at best.

[nashville_brook]

24. define "person of substance"

[Zandor]

25. Holding office

would be a good start.

[nashville_brook]

27. i tend to think that it's honorable for citizens to participate in democracy...

is that out of line?

should they keep these ideas to themselves?

[Zandor]

28. They should speak out

but let's not call them prominent Americans. And you won't see any Democrats of substance join this ill-advised effort.

[nashville_brook]

34. "prominent" means "widely known or popular" -- "preeminent" suggests rank

i think you're confusing the word "prominent" with the word "preeminent"

[Zandor]

36. Fair enough

A handful are recognizable to a reasonable amount of people. Most are nobodies.

[coalition_unwilling]

43. You don't think Daniel Ellsburg and Gore Vidal are "prominent

Americans"???? They're only not prominent if you don't know your recent American history.

[Ignis]

29. Are you freakin' kidding me?!

- Daniel Ellsberg
- Thom Hartmann
- Rabbi Michael Lerner
- Rabbi Steven Jacobs
- Cynthia McKinney
- Willie Nelson
- Cindy Sheehan
- Norman Solomon
- Elizabeth de la Vega
- Gore Vidal
- Ann Wright
- James Abourezk, former U.S. Senator, (D) South Dakota

I'm not sure on which planet Gore Vidal, Michael Lerner, Daniel Ellsberg, and Thom Hartman are NOT "persons of substance"--but they sure as hell are here on Earth!

You've really jumped the shark with this one. :eyes:

[Zandor]

35. Are you freakin' kidding me?!

Willie Nelson? Cindy Sheehan? Being well known doesn't mean you have substance or authority on an issue.

Include Pelosi and Reid, then we'll talk.

[Ignis]

38. Creating your own subject isn't so hard. Try it sometime.

To be clear, you are saying that Gore Vidal, Michael Lerner, Daniel Ellsberg, and Thom Hartman are not persons of substance.

Is that correct?

[Zandor]

39. Broadcasters, authors, critics

They really don't bring a lot of weight, IMO.

[againes654]

40. So you get to decide who has substance?

That offends me!!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Actually, the way most Democratic office holders are acting these days.

having them on there would MAKE it irrelevant.

If the Dems aren't doing their job (acting as a check and balance on the executive branch), someone else has to step in and at least take a moral stand.

[Zandor]

23. Who's responsible for the Blackwater hearings? Willie Nelson?

That's a check and balance. You need to hold office to do that.

Telling soldiers to refuse orders buys you a seat on the bench.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

26. I repeat:

You. Are. Transparent.

[Zandor]

37. What a thoughtful and effective argument

:eyes:

[Vidar]

20. Very proud to add my name to that list. Highly recommended.

[Nederland]

33. Fundamentally flawed idea

The major problem with this type of petition is that people with absolutely nothing at stake are telling those with their lives and careers on the line what to do. Yes, Joint Chiefs of Staff and all U.S. Military Personnel are not required to follow illegal orders. However, people that refuse to follow orders will be arrested for failing to follow orders and have to plead their argument in court. They will have to convince that COURT, not the people on this list, that the orders they received were illegal. There is absolutely no guaranteed that a court would rule in their favor simply because a bunch of people, no matter how "prestigious", think they should. If they win, great, if they lose, they go to jail for years.

That is not a bet that anyone of high enough rank to matter is going to make.

[coalition_unwilling]

44. Have you ever studied Daniel Ellsburg's career? After what he

suffered at the hands of the last band of Nazis in power (Nixonians), I don't think you can so easily dismiss him.

Ellsburg said he decided to leak the Pentagon Papers after he saw young people of substance willing to throw everything away to stop the Vietnam War. After he leaked, he was prosecuted, his psychiatric records were stolen by the Plumbers, his life was basically ruined.

Many enlisted soliders have already refused orders to deploy to Iraq or to return for a second or subsequent deployment. And, yes, some have served lengthy prison terms. But none of them, to my knowlege, have served "years". (I think the longest term so far has been 6 months by Camillo Mejia, although I might be wrong on that.)