First Woman Conscientious Objector Resists Deployment to Iraq

November 23, 2005


First Woman Conscientious Objector Resists Deployment to Iraq
Army National Guard Specialist Katherine Jashinski is the first woman conscientious objector to the Iraq war. In a press conference last week, Jashinski publicly refused deployment and spoke out against the war. She applied for conscientious objector status in 2004, but after 18 months, her claim was denied and she was ordered to weapons training to prepare for deployment. In her public statement, Jashinski said that while she had fulfilled her duties to the Army until that point, she was “forced to choose between my legal obligation to the Army and my deepest moral values… I will exercise my legal right not to pick up a weapon and to participate in a war effort.”

Also speaking at the press conference was Aimee Allison, a Gulf War resister and counselor with PeaceOut.com. Allison told the crowd that she has talked to “so many women who think there is nothing they can do because they have not seen other women act,” reports In Motion Magazine. CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin said, “I applaud Katherine’s courageous stand against the continued role of the US in bringing violence to the Middle East.”
(snip/)

http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=9396

... a conscientious objector would freely join the Army National Guard, since that would likely entail combat?
Or was her CO status an afterthought, after her realization that the Iraq war was unnecessary and illegal?
(I just need clarification here, since I thought COs were that way from the start, but I may be wrong.)

The U.S. military does allow people to change their CO status once they have enlisted, but that is generally a much tougher hurdle than declaring it at the beginning. From the article, it sounds like this person has gone through the hearings, and been rejected.

From the article, it appears that she is trying to do just that, but has been rejected. The military appears to share your view, that she objects to the Iraq War (or, even more limited, that she objects to personally fighting in the Iraq War) rather than objecting to committing violence per se.

As I have 0 knowledge of this case, I won't bother offering an opinion. What I will add is that the changing status is possible, but faces a much higher standard of review than declaring your status at enlistment.

R. Garrett.

...what does that mean in terms of their service duties? Do they get to choose in which capacity they serve, i.e., non-combatant? (I think not.) Or can they be deployed in the field, but they then decide not to pick up a gun? (Which doesn't make sense to me.) I don't understand why a CO would join any military organisation - that's where I'm confused.

Thanks for your reply.

Desmond Doss was drafted for WW II. He was a Seventh Day Adventist and could easily have gotten out of his induction. Instead, he actively fought to serve, albeit as a non-combattant conscientious objector. His argued successfully that his beliefs in the sanctity of human life had no bearing on his desire to serve his country in its hour of need. He was duly inducted, became a medical corpsman, and went on to save hundreds of wounded men from the battle field. In fact, Doss became the first CO to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor, specifically for his heroic actions during the Battle of the Maeda Enscarpment on Okinawa. There is a documentary of this man; see http://www.desmonddoss.com/ for details.

There are a lot of people who would serve their country provided they could do so without killing. It has always been possible for otherwise qualified people to enlist as non-combattants, although as with other COs, it is necessary for the volunteer to show this as a core value. They end up with much the same basic training, then they are sent to specialize in non-combattant fields such as communications, electronics and medical.

status in the 60-70s when they were already serving. The rules were very stringent - they did not consider you a CO if you merely said that if you wife or children were threatened you would use force to protect them.

you knew you would be killing innocent civilians for this lie? would you object to that? i doubt most people who sign up for the guard do so looking for bogus, illegal wars to fight in.

During the draft era, the one and only time to declare yourself a conscientious objector was when your number came up and you were called to duty. You could file a hearing with your draft board to make your case for either 1-A-O (will serve but will not take up arms due to conscience) or 1-O (will not serve at all due to conscience.) To get classified as a conscientious objector, you needed to prove that your core values included a prohibition against taking human life. Anything less than total and absolute rejection of killing humans did not qualify for CO status; it was not enough to object to a particular war because your core values deem it not to be a "just" war (Gillette v United States, 1971.)

While the laws allowed for only objections based in religious beliefs, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v Seeger in 1965 that the expression "religious training and belief" included any belief which occupied the same place or role in ones life as the belief of a Supreme Being did in the life of a believer. Five years latter, the Supreme Court ruled that the religious requirement could not be limited to religious based beliefs only, as this was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. As a result, objections based on moral or ethical beliefs had to be given equal weight as religious beliefs (Welsh v United States)

Draftees inducted as 1-A-O were assigned to non-combattant duties, very often as medical corpmen. After their term expired, they were entitled to all the various benefits given to other veterans. 1-O draftees were still required to serve out their term of involuntary servitude... excuse me, their time of service to the country, only in a behind the lines, state-side capacity, and were not entitled to any veteran benefits (Johnson v Robinson, 1974.)

When the military went to all-volunteer, many of these rules remained in place. It was assumed that a conscientious objector would not voluntarily enlist; thus, attempts to be classified as objectors were ignored. By the late 1980s, however, the military came to realize that without the crucible of active warfare, it was difficult for individuals to test their conscience. It also came to be recognized that the hard-sell recruiting tactics and promises of job training and employment were pulling in people that, as a matter of conscience, should not have enlisted in the first place. Thus, a process was set up that would allow soldiers to voluntarily remove themselves from active duty if, during the term of their enlistment, they came to discover a core value against the taking of human life.

It is my understanding that process for this removal starts with a conversation with a chaplain or similar person. The soldier interviews with the chaplain, commanding officer and a few other people. If CO status is granted, it again comes in two flavors: a permanent switch to non-combattant duties for those who wish to stick out their service, and a general discharge. Because of the amount of training (ie effort and expense) the soldier has already received, the process for getting objector status is, understandably, slow and drawn-out.

In recent times of war, including the present, general discharges for conscientious objection are simply not going to happen. For one thing, there is the annoying reality of the military's "stop-loss" policy. For another -- I don't intend to insult anyone, but it still must be said -- there are some people who enlist as "fair weather soldiers" for training and employment but who will be first in line to escape the moment their lives are genuinely put in danger. In the first month of activating the armed forces for the Iraq invasion, there were several hundred CO requests submitted, far more than was normally seen in a whole year. It is very unlikely all of these people suddenly clicked with their core values.

I can't speak for Jashinski; I don't know the details of her situation. But if her CO investigation lasted 18 months, chances are it was pretty thorough. If she were faking it to get out of active combat or if she was a victim of the stop-loss, I don't think it would have taken so long for her request to be denied. I am inclined to say that her case was looked in to and found to be insufficient.

And for the Desmond Doss story. These clear up a lot of my confusion. I did wonder if some quickly requested CO status as an easy way out of actually engaging in combat. I imagine it would be well-nigh impossible to prove genuine CO core values given the situation with poor military recruitment and enlistment today.

Thanks again, TechBear_Seattle!

they did it mainly for the education benefits (such as they are) or a little extra money. No doubt they expected any call to active duty to involve helping with natural disasters or, at worse, civil unrest in their home states. I doubt if many planned on being told they would occupy a foreign country in a war of aggression.

Weekend duty and 2 weeks in the summer!

:bounce:

If I had joined the national guard and then was sent to an illegal war of invasion and aggression, I'd like to think I would have the courage to face public humiliation, ostracization by my fellow soldiers and jail in refusing to be deployed.

I'd like to think my principles wouldn't allow me to be part of mudering innocent civilians who have done nothing but been born in a place little georgie porgie had a hardon for.

From day one, that little coward had been dying to deploy his detachable penis.

War criminal. Just because Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc are war criminals doesn't mean soldiers have to be.

Jail or murder. I think I'd choose jail.

A woman doctor refused to go to Iraq in Desert Storm.

:patriot: I acknowledge the courage necessary to take a stand as a conscientious objector!

Thank you!!!

but it doesn't hurt to try it.

unjust war. In other words you're giving the White House the finger. I admire your courage.

I can imagine the people she's going to be up against and the smear campaign they will do to her.

Thank you Katherine, you are a hero.

National guard is supposed to be defending on this soil, or helping out after national disasters. Not being sent to foreign soil!! (We may need her help for another hurricane ) :applause: :woohoo:

I salute you, Specialist Jashinski!

Can you explain why?

You are told before you join the National Guard that you might be called up for overseas duty in wartime. She knew it was part of the deal when she volunteered. It would be different if people were drafted. But when you KNOW that war is part of bargain before you ever even volunteer, you can't very well back out of the deal later. It makes it look like she just wanted to get paid without holding up her end. A true pacificist would never volunteer for military service at all.

Perhaps you should enlist and take her place, since you feel so strongly about this issue.

I already did my time, during another wasteful war!

have consistently made up the bulk of resisters and whistleblowers among the various Iraq scandals.

Katherine, and there was Camilo Mejia (Hispanic man)

As far as whistleblowers, there was Bunnatine Greenhouse (African American woman) and Brigadier-General Janice Karpinsky, another woman, who was very disturbed when she heard about what was going on at Abu Ghraib and that's why she was the only one demoted, not because she was overseeing it, but because she voiced objections and would not toe the party line.

She was recently interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, where you can hear what really happened, and find out why she was the one scapegoated for Abu Ghraib, just as one of the few honest election officials in Florida, an African American woman, was fired, Jeb's attempt to "fix" the problem of election fraud (really fix the problem of whistleblowers in any position to try to stop it).

Not the murderers who justify their actions by saying, " I was just following orders"...