In the early weeks of 2008, Colombia experienced a wave of "batidas" - raids on youth on public places such as bus stations in order to recruit draft evaders or anyone without the appropriate military papers to the military. While this is the common form of recruitment in Colombia, there are indications that the level of batidas in the province of Antioquia was unusual.
(Youth Network of Medellin) reported several batidas in January and February. An eye witness reported:
"On 5 January at 5.30pm a squadron of the fourth brigade was present in the neighbourhood of Raizal, at the corner of calle 77 and calle 31.
They began to stop motorbikes, bicycles, and any youth who happened to be walking on the street ... they did not arrive as they did in the past on lorries, and taking men of buses, but this time they arrived on foot, without calling for attention ... they went in small groups, walking through the streets of the neighbourhood. They then put the young people on the sandy ground, the young between 16 and 20 years who they said had to define their military situation. [...]"
This is almost the usual procedure. The young are then brought on lorries to military barracks, where they will quickly be checked, and most will be recruited - unless they are obviously unfit for military service or carry papers with them that prove that they are studying, or exempt for other reasons. Although this might not always be sufficient.
Red Juvenil received similar reports from other parts of Medellin, and from Barrancabermeja, throughout January and February 2008.
The Colombian military claims that this practice is legal. According to Article 50 of degree 2048, the recruitment authorities have the right to carry out patrols to find draft evaders and/or persons who did not define their military situation. While - according to the degree - it might be legal to check people's papers, what usually follows is certainly illegal, and does not meet neither Colombian nor international legal standards. According to the law, those who do not define their military situation in time can be compelled to do so. However, the practice of taking those without military ID to the barracks to process them there directly deprives those youth of their right to a proper legal process, as they have almost no chance to claim legal exemptions, to submit any prove or other papers supporting their right to exemption, and so on. That this kind of process is illegal has also been stressed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in a decision on a case from Guatemala in 1993.
Another general practice shows that the military in fact is aware of the illegality of its recruitment. War Resisters' International knows from several cases that those recruited in this way are forced to sign up to three documents without being given the chance to read them (see for example the case of), i.e. that there are no reasons for exemption according to article 28 of law 48/1999. With these signatures the military tries to cover itself against accusations of forced or illegal recruitment.
In a different development, Bogota conscientious objector Alvaro Pena had to present himself to the recruitment department of Bogota on 12 February 2008. Pena had previously declared himself a conscientious objector, and had communicated this to the recruitment department. In his declaration, he wrote:
"I, Alvaro, I declare myself conscientious objector, being conscientious that war will only end if many of us realise that through violence we won't reach peace or a healthy and tolerant coexistence. I declare myself an objector against any kind of oppression or human rights violation, and to be part of any kind of army, legal or illegal and being very clear that I wont take arms as a way of solving conflicts and that from today on I will work so that military service is no longer compulsory and that the military card wont be needed for any requirement. This position is not only for my own personal convenience, as I think about how many families and people could be fed and have their basic needs covered with what is spent only on one day of war. In addition I have experienced the senseless repression of the police."
Although he had declared himself a conscientious objector, the Colombian military maintained in its response to Pena's petition that there is no right to conscientious objection in Colombia, and that Pena would need to present himself on 12 February in order to define his military situation.
On that day, Alvaro Pena presented himself. The Bogota CO group reported on the events: "Ãlvaro PeÃ±a, colombian conscientious objector, was today February 12th at 9 am in the Villa de los AlpesÂ´ Coliseum, to resolve his military situation. During the whole day, as part of millions of young men summoned by the military forces, Ãlvaro, tried to explain his case as a conscientious objector to the Major DueÃ±as, who was in charge of incorporation. AlvarÃ³ was rejected several times, and never listened to.
Finally, Ãlvaro was taken with 200 other young men, who had not resolved their military situation, into a closed room, where they remained until 9:30 p.m. when they were told that they must be there tomorrow again at 7:00 a.m."
On the next day, Pena again presented himself. After several hours, the military postponed his service, and ordered him to return on 20 May to "define his military situation".
Sources:, enero de 2008, , febrero de 2008, , enero de 2008, , febrero de 2008, Accion Colectiva Objetores y Objetoras de Conciencia Bogota, emails from 13 February and 14 February 2008.
Link to source-webpage, obtained via: , March 28, 2008, 12:05am
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)