Ehren Watada is a First Lieutenant in the United States Army who refused to deploy to Iraq in June 2006 citing the war's illegality as his reason. Of course he's right about the war being illegal. He's also right that under that law, he is obligated not to fight. He's been fighting a seesaw legal battle with the U.S. Army.
Andrew Williams is a former Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy and member of the Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG), meaning he was a naval attorney. He has submitted his resignation because the United States military is no longer taking an unconditional stand against all forms of torture deemed illegal under law.
Among other things, he wrote in his public letter of resignation the following:
...the United States is now part of a long tradition of torturers going back to the Inquisition. In the middle ages the Inquisition called waterboarding "toca" and used it with great success. In colonial times, it was used by the Dutch East India Company during the Amboyna Massacre of 1623.
Waterboarding was used by the Nazi Gestapo and the feared Japanese Kempeitai. In World War II, our grandfathers had the wisdom to convict Japanese Officer Yukio Asano of waterboarding and other torture practices in 1947 giving him 15 years hard labor. Waterboarding was practiced by the Khmer Rouge at the infamous Tuol Sleng prison. Most recently, the United States Army court martialed a soldier for the practice in 1968 during the Vietnam conflict.
While both Watada and Williams are mistakenly willing to fight, at least they are only willing to fight in ways they see worth fighting for and against greater evil. Unfortunately, the United States has devolved into openly aspiring to raw imperial power without even pretense. Oh, pretense isn't good mind you, but at least it suggests that there are enough more righteous-leaning people that the powers that be must take care not to cross them. No longer, the monstrously cruel and wicked are openly in charge. They don't fear (respect) God or the people.
Thanks to Military.com (cited above).for covering the article on
Over on that site (slacktivist), the comment section refers to Filipino prisoners being killed by the U.S. military about 100 years ago.
As we've mentioned before but haven't seen anybody else mentioning it, one of the reasons the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment is because some of the colonists had been practicing dunking, which is strapping a person in a chair on a long and large cantilevered pole and dunking the person, chair, pole, and all under the water of a river or lake or whatever and holding them there to throw the fear of death into them and to torture them with burning and water-filling lungs, etc. It was sheer evil, just as waterboarding is today. It was monstrous then, and is still monstrous now. Only the wicked-hearted inflict such penalties upon others. It didn't rehabilitate people. It didn't condition them not to do evil. It hardened them. It taught the wrong lesson that inflicting pain is a correct method for getting others not to do evil. It was completely hypocritical and ironic. Jesus and God hate it.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)