Indifferent, cruel and uncaring

An Open Letter to Congress: The Iraq War

The Iraq war has NEVER made sense.

We were already in a major war and another one would have stretched our military resources to the limit (which it did).

Gulf War Syndrome had never been addressed and, as I feared, our soldiers are becoming mysteriously ill AGAIN.

We did not build up the numbers of our military past peacetime strength before engaging in this war, and we had no strategy to keep the peace.

My husband is a member of the Army National Guard and I strongly resent having the threat of deployment hanging over his head for the last three years. Three years of limbo is counter-productive. There are many more like us.

I strongly object to having to give up my daughter to this war, even AFTER two Army doctors had pronounced her medically unfit and “undeployable”. Instead of being medically discharged, she spent a year in Baghdad and my pleas to the White House and virtually everyone else were ignored. A letter from the White House assured me that I would be referred to the Dept. of Defense. That was in December ’03 and I’m still waiting.

Medically unfit soldiers are routinely being sent into battle:

www.orgsites.com/ga/save-our-soldiers

I started this website to call attention to their plight, but I have found that this is an open secret and not many people care. Murderers in our prison system do not deserve such cruel and unusual punishment. Why do we force it upon our soldiers??

A pattern has emerged from the letters I've received from families of medically unfit soldiers:

1. The soldier is examined by a military doctor or doctors,
and is found to be medically unfit.
2. The soldier is sent into a war zone anyway, most are in
severe pain.
3. The soldier is denied medical treatment while in combat, at
the risk of becoming permanently disabled.
4. The soldier is given pain killers.
5. The soldier is told to "suck it up".
6. The soldier is denied access to his/her medical records while in combat.
7. The soldier is given duty that is as heavy as anyone else
in combat, even at the risk of harming (or even
killing) another soldier by mistake.
8. The soldier who returns home is still denied medical
treatment in more than half the cases.

9. After the soldier's return home, it is STILL very difficult to get medical help for the soldier.

W. Bush once said that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power because "he tried to kill my daddy". Well, W. Bush tried to kill my DAUGHTER! What do you believe I think about HIM? He has created this impossible situation that forces unfit soldiers into combat while denying them medical treatment. This administration does not care much about our men and women in the Armed forces, and even less about the thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens.

The members of our Armed forces are returning—physically and mentally broken. Many who have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, instead of being treated, are talked back into combat by military counselors to “face their fears”. My daughter won’t get help for her own PTSD because she has seen this. The military counselors told her to re-enlist, promising that if she did that she would then get surgery for the condition that rendered her “undeployable”.

Some soldiers have lost their means to make a decent living and cannot get help from the government before they lose their houses, their cars, and sometimes their own families. These soldiers are not the responsibility of the non-profit groups, but we love them and we try to help them to the best of our limited means.

Some people are quick to inform us who are the military families, that our loved one signed a contract with the government. In order to have a contract there must be two sides being held to their promises. Keeping that in mind, it's the government that broke the contract. Contracts can’t be one-sided.

This war didn’t make sense in the beginning; now it makes even less. Please stop this insane war NOW.

Denise Thomas
GA Military Families Speak Out
Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition
People Rights Organization of America
giwifegimom@netscape.net

Rep. Cynthia McKinney
addresses the crowd.

Speech at Voting Rights Act Rally

We are here to celebrate one of the most important pieces of fruit shaken down from America's tree of opportunity.

But what do you do when you have no more tree shakers and all your fruit is gone?

If we are to avoid the strange fruit of powerlessness, we have to pass the torch of leadership to a new generation of strong, uncompromising tree shakers.

We can no longer be satisfied with leaders, hand-picked for us, and not by us. Because it's that strange fruit that wrecks our dreams and kills our community.

The strange fruit that occurs when other people assume our powerlessness and we act accordingly.

The strange fruit of Bakke, Croson, Adarand, Shaw v. Reno, Johnson v. Miller. And Gratz. Each iteration more contorted and perverted than the version before it.

Strange fruit like Kenneth Walker, dead at the hands of the Columbus, Georgia police. Strange fruit like Frederick Williams, tasered to death by the Gwinnett County police. Strange fruit like Bernard Burden, found hanging from a tree in Coweta County.

America's tree of opportunity is becoming twisted and dead because America is becoming devoid of tree shakers: people unafraid of taking a stand, voicing dissent; throwing their bodies against the levers and the gears of the machine in order to make a difference.

Dr. King's bounced check still bounces back every day marked insufficient funds because we allow America not to pay.

Halliburton gets paid. Billions and billions and billions of dollars. But our black farmers have yet to be paid--despite winning in America's courts of law.

That's a lesson for us. In how twisted the tree of opportunity becomes when we fail to follow through with vigorous agitation and tree shaking, sowing the seeds of justice for the next generation.

But today we are here to demand our due.

Life, liberty, and the right to vote. On machines that we know will accurately count our vote.

And on this we will not be hoodwinked, snookered, bought out, or bushwhacked.

Up you mighty race, you can accomplish what you will. No more strange fruit.

Thank you.

BRIBES + VOUCHERS = BLACK BUSH SUPPORTERS

The corporate-Republican onslaught against the Black Political Consensus, conceived in the war rooms of rightwing think tanks a decade ago, is in full fury. Massively financed by, first private, and now public dollars, the campaign to create the perception of an alternative, conservative Black “leadership” is on the march in all regions of the nation, sowing confusion and alarm among authentic African American political formations. As expected, the corporate media certified that the 22 bought-and-paid-for ministers and corporate front persons showcased at the White House last week were, indeed, “Black leaders.”

“President Discusses Issues With Black Leaders,” announced the New York Times headline, featuring a photo captioned: “President Bush met with about 20 African-American leaders for a little more than an hour Tuesday.”

If the New York Times considers the handpicked gaggle to be “Black leaders,” it must be true.

The Associated Press said so, too. “President Bush told black leaders Tuesday that his plan to add private accounts to Social Security would benefit blacks since they tend to have shorter lives than some other Americans and end up paying in more than they get out,” said the AP article, distributed worldwide.

The nation’s second most influential paper, the Washington Post, qualified the delegation’s status, describing them as “right-leaning black leaders.” Does that mean they are leaders of other “right-leaning” Blacks, or real Black leaders who happen to lean (or bend over) to the right?

Interestingly, the truly rightist Washington Times gave the most straightforward account, simply calling the pretenders “14 clergy and eight executives of banks and nonprofit organizations.” The Detroit Free Press played up the local angle, noting that four area ministers were among the anointed and that Michigan organizations received $61 million in faith-based money in 2003 out of $12 billion dollars distributed, nationwide – the magnetic monetary pull that drew Bush’s Black minions to his service.

By any measurement, the senior Black mercenary present was Robert L. Woodson, president of the National Center forNeighborhood Enterprise, former aid to Newt Gingrich, recipient since 1995 of more than $6 million in rightwing foundation money, and now riding first-class on the federal faith-based gravy train.

Orchestrating the show were the two men most responsible for keeping the money flowing: Jim Towey, director of Bush's Faith-based and Community Initiatives, and chief White House strategist Karl Rove, who makes sure faith-based grants and contracts are manipulated for maximum political effect – more Tom for the buck, so to speak.

Prominent among the preachers was Rev. Eugene Rivers of the Ten Point Coalition in Boston, described as “one of the leading proponents of Bush's faith-based initiative.” Rivers voted for Gore in 2000 – but that was before the faith-based bribes began flowing.

Michelle D. Bernard represents the more overtly Republican elements in the Gang-of-22. Bernard is a corporate lawyer and senior vice president of the Independent Women's Forum, which describes itself as a “research group” but is actually paid by the Hard Right to counter the National Organization for Women (NOW) on the talk show circuit. Her White House appearance boosts Bernard’s stature as the “alternative” political Black woman – in line with GOP philosophy: if you can’t get an African American Republican woman elected by Black people, put her on generous retainer.

Upstaging the Caucus

By scheduling the servile delegation on the day before the Congressional Black Caucus’s session with the president, Karl Rove not only upstaged the 43 U.S. Representatives but also guaranteed that the Caucus would share newspaper spacewith the Right’s hirelings. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post conflated the Tuesday and Wednesday meetings in the same articles, bestowing a kind of political equivalence to the two visiting Black groups – precisely the goal of the GOP’s overall “alternative Black leadership” creation strategy.

Thus, Bush’s Black Coalition of the Bribed shared equal presidential face-time and media space with men and women who represent half a million citizens each. A paid amen corner for Bush’s Social Security destruction scheme received as much public policy (and media) consideration as elected representatives eager to discuss important elements of the historical Black Political Consensus: employment, education, universal health care, affirmative action, peace and the fight against AIDS at home and in Africa.

Bush’s 14 compliant clergy also upstaged an historic meeting of 10,000 delegates from four Black Baptist denominations, in Nashville, the same week. Together representing 15 million members, the four denominations’ presidents agreed to move towards a common agenda dramatically opposed to the Republican administration – and fully in line with the historical Black Consensus. According to the Chicago Tribune, the Black Baptists:

“…declared their opposition to the war in Iraq and to the nomination and expected confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general.

”They also called for a higher minimum wage, discontinuation of recent tax cuts, investment in public education and reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, some provisions of which are up for review in 2007… .

”Leaders also demanded that Bush stop privatization of prison construction, reinvest in children's health insurance and increase global relief for black nations such as Sudan and Haiti.”

Yet the New York Times said not a word about the huge Nashville gathering – an event of potentially history-bending significance – while the Washington Post ran a blurb in its News In Brief section, page 20. Network and cable news outlets were totally silent, although they had all covered Bush’s 22 chosen Blacks at the White House – the political equivalent of bling-bling.

With the eager assistance of corporate media, Karl Rove is handily winning the battle of perceptions, creating the impression among whites and Blacks that the tide is surging rightward among African Americans. That’s bad enough – but on the ground, in localities around the nation, corporate and public faith-based and voucher-advocacy dollars threaten to savage historical Black political structures and, ultimately, destroy African Americans’ ability to collectively resist the Right.

‘Roving’ around New Jersey

The Right’s systematic assault on the Black body politic is dramatically evident in heavily Black and Latino northern New Jersey, a focus of Wal-Mart heir John Walton’s inner city pro- voucher “philanthropy” and Karl Rove’s machinations among Black ministers. The two paths intersect at the Newark-based voucher outfit Excellent Education for Everyone, or E-3. The hyper-aggressive political front can count on about a half million dollars a year from the Walton Family Foundation ($400,000 in 2003) and also benefits from federal Education Department grants to the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options (HCREO), another pro-voucher outfit. HCREO shares funding links (Bush’s Education Department and rightwing foundations) with the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO), one of whose founding directors, former and future Newark mayoral candidate Cory Booker (see “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree, April 5, 2002), was also a founder of E-3. (Booker received campaign financing from the Waltons, as well.)

This isn’t conspiracy theory; rather, it’s the result of strategic planning and funding by the Bush regime, the Waltons and, especially, the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation, which invented both the “Black” voucher “movement” and faith-based initiatives in the mid-Nineties.

Also on E-3’s board is Rev. Reginald Jackson, head of the Black Ministers Council of New Jersey. Two weeks before the recent election, E-3 announced:

“In an effort to focus constituents on the benefits of choice, ministers and pastors in NJ began last Sunday (October 17) to deliver sermons on school choice and the need for parents to support the advocacy efforts of the [New Jersey School Choice Alliance]. ‘This is by far the most important, the most vital civil rights issue facing us, and our children,’ said Rev. Reginald Jackson, pastor of St. Matthews A.M.E. church in Orange, NJ….”

The most vital civil rights issue! Not affirmative action, not racism in the criminal justice system, not the right to adequate health care, but vouchers. What a difference rightwing money makes in the priorities of a section of the Black clergy.

Contrary to Eagleton Poll claims that residents of poor New Jersey communities favor school “choice” by up to 75 percent, a recent survey by the Strategic Marketing Group found only 24 percent of Black Newark households believe vouchers are the best cure for what ails education in the city. No matter – the twin lures of faith-based funding and vouchers are irresistible to ministers on the make, many of whom operate – or would like to operate – private church-based schools.

Karl Rove took a keen interest in the Garden State, especially when polls showed a surprising narrowing of the gap between Bush and Kerry. Rove visited the Newark area twice just before the election, and once afterwards, reserving special attention for Black clergy.

On election night, according to Lionel Leach, Director of the NAACP National Voter Fund-NJ, “Bush got about 2900 votes in the Central Ward in Newark, which is 82.6 percent African American, but you look and you see that’s where the majority of churches are.”

Leach is also a member of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Commission. “New Jersey has the most voter suppression in the country,” he says. The GOP has “done everything possible to suppress the Black and Latino vote.” In what appears on the surface like a kind of political schizophrenia, Republicans use every legal and illegal means available to keep Blacks from voting en masse, yet spend vast sums to gain the overt or covert support of Black ministers.

Once the Republican strategy is understood, however, there is no contradiction. The Right’s goal is not to convert legions of Blacks to the GOP, which would seriously dilute the party’s white appeal and is, at any rate, an impossibility. The Right’s real goal is to create the impression of fundamental splits in Black ranks, and thus subvert the credibility of mainstream leaders who hold to the historical Black Political Consensus. Everywhere, there exist Black preachers and hustlers who are willing to advance the GOP project. Money does the trick. Marginal increases in Black votes for Republicans are welcome, especially in close races, but this is not a battle for the hearts and minds of Black America. Rather, it is an assault on the historical unity of African Americans.

The Republicans need only a few Black faces to fill up a room, or a television screen, and only a modest number of Black congregations to demonstrate newfound credibility in the community. They can achieve this at literally no cost, since faith-based and voucher advocacy (“public education”) grants are paid for with tax dollars – public money.

The Time Line of Corruption shows just how far the GOP has traveled in the decade since the Bradley Foundation devised its faith-based and voucher strategy and sold it to the national Republican Party. Back in 1993, Republican hit men like consultant Ed Rollins bribed Black clergy to quietly discourage their congregants from voting, as reported by a contemporary issue of the Columbia Journalism Review:

”At a November 9 Sperling breakfast, Rollins, boasting about how he had just helped win a governorship for New Jersey's Christine Todd Whitman, said the campaign had spent about $500,000 to suppress the black vote. He said GOP operatives had made payments to Democratic precinct workers in black areas on condition they sit on their hands on election day. And he said the Whitman campaign had contributed to church charities in return for black ministers keeping mum on the virtues of Democratic incumbent James Florio.”

Today, Republicans offer corrupt ministers billions on condition that they dramatically break from the historical Black Political Consensus and, hopefully, crack the fragile Democratic coalition. The homosexual “threat” is a smokescreen for treachery. For every outraged Black preacher howling that he’s giving up on the Democrats because of the gays, there is a check or the promise of a check.

And maybe a visit to the White House.

Sheri Divers
Spiritual Atlanta

Kevin and Monica
Benderman

By KEVIN DUFFY
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 05/08/05

For a man facing court-martial this week, Kevin Benderman appeared unworried.

"I'm confident. I know that I'm not a deserter," the Army sergeant said in a telephone interview Saturday before speaking at Georgia Tech. "They're court-martialing me because I applied for conscientious objector status. They're trying to make an example of me."

Benderman, 40, is charged with desertion and what the Army calls "missing movement by design" for failing to show up for deployment back to Iraq.

He is scheduled for court-martial Thursday at Fort Stewart, which is headquarters for the 3rd Infantry Division.

The mechanic, who lives in nearby Hinesville, said he had an official excuse that will prove he's innocent. If convicted, he could go to prison for seven years.

Benderman spoke to about 70 people at Tech about his six months in Iraq last year, and how that led him to seek conscientious objector status and an honorable discharge from the Army.

He applied 10 days before his unit was scheduled to leave for Iraq. The Army rejected his request, calling him insincere, but he has reapplied.

"I don't want to participate in any more wars," the son of a World War II veteran told the Tech audience. "It dehumanizes everyone all around. It's insanity." Benderman, born in Alabama and raised in Tennessee, recalled images that helped change his mind about war after nearly 10 years in the military.

One was of a little girl "standing on the side of the road, with her arms severely burned, begging for help and I couldn't help her." He was in a convoy and "we just drove on by" after the commanding officer said they couldn't stop to provide medical help.

In another instance, boys on a wall were throwing pebbles at the soldiers who were trying to shoo them away.

The commanding officer appeared and was frightened at what was going on. According to Benderman, the officer said, "If they come back up on the wall, I want you to shoot them."

"It made me learn the truth of war, not the glamorized version," he said. "Violence is not the answer, because all it does is bring more violence."

Benderman said he discovered that Iraqis are like Americans in many ways. He read the Koran and saw its similarities to the Bible.

Benderman's wife, Monica Benderman, said she noticed a change in her husband when he returned from Iraq. He had trouble sleeping and brooded. He found peace only when he decided to reject war and seek conscientious objector status, she said.

Buckets were passed in the audience to collect funds to help with Benderman's defense. He has the help of civilian and military lawyers. A Web site — www.bender mandefense.org — explains his situation.

Supporters from 31 countries have written to him. And "a lot of people who served with me are supportive," he said. "Nobody hates war more than a soldier."

Benderman said 5,500 soldiers involved in Iraq either have gone AWOL or sought conscientious objector status. The Department of Defense says 1,593 U.S. soldiers have been killed since the conflict began.

Frank Ruechel, a professor of history and American government at Life University, introduced Benderman by saying that Christians are obligated to reject war. "One is called to be a conscientious objector when one is a Christian," Ruechel said.

Joe Parko, a retired Georgia State University professor and member of the Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition, told the Tech audience, "If his courage to speak out saves a single life, then Sgt. Benderman deserves a medal, not a court-martial."

Benderman said that if he's found innocent, he plans to devote all his time to helping others become conscientious objectors.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM MONICA BENDERMAN

An Open Letter to My Husband’s Chain of Command:

The Players of the Game

May 3, 2005

MEMORANDUM FOR Director, Military Personnel Mgmt., Dept. of the Army, Wash. DC.

MEMORANDUM THROUGH Installation Commander, Ft. Stewart, Georgia

Division Rear Detachment Commander, Ft. Stewart, GA
Brigade Rear Detachment Commander, Ft. Stewart, GA
Company Rear Detachment Commander, Ft. Stewart, GA
Battalion Forward Support Chaplain, Ft. Stewart, GA
Conscientious Objector Hearing Investigating Officer, Ft. Stewart, Georgia

SUBJECT: Getting to the Heart of the Matter

I read with interest, the response given by all of the above mentioned in my husband, Sgt. Kevin Benderman’s, chain of command, with regard to his application for Conscientious Objector status. I reviewed the completed recommendation, and gave it a thorough examination before coming to the conclusion that I must respond to it in this manner. My review took exactly one minute. My interest was piqued. The net worth of YOUR time in a matter involving the rest of my husband’s life, and MINE, having made the commitment (YES, Sirs… COMMITMENT) that I did, to support him as he chose to do the right thing and follow his conscience, THE NET WORTH OF YOUR TIME in this matter was a mere one minute’s worth of reading for a message that had all the human interest of a computer generated condolence letter.

I have been involved in the process of my husband’s coming to the difficult decision that he did since long before any of you even knew his name. For the record, I believe that even at this point, that is truly all any of you do know of this man. Which leads me to this question: How exactly is it that any of you could, in GOOD CONSCIENCE, make any recommendation whatsoever on my husband’s choice of conscience, having never really taken the time to get to know him?

Col. John Kidd, Ft. Stewart Installation Command, I have heard so very many things about you from a variety of sources. Soldiers, family members, wives, and media have all given me their thoughts on the type of person that you are. There have been some favorable comments, but most claim that you lost a feeling for the humanity of the soldiers and families that have come to you for help somewhere in the seemingly difficult work that you have had to do dealing with war and its aftermath. You have never met my husband, and yet you claim to know his soul. I have no opinion of you, Sir. I couldn’t have, we have never met. I believe you do somehow respect humanity, and the choices you make are because you have had to close your heart to feeling, as so many soldiers must in these difficult times. Now that it is closed, you have trouble seeing when a soldier needs to stop soldiering to save himself, and to be what he needs to be for the family he has committed to. Family commitment, FIRST above all else, is a duty that must be served for life.

Lt. Col. Noel Nicholle, Ft. Stewart Division Rear Det. Commander, I have heard very much the same about you. I do not know you, but others have had much to tell me. I choose to withhold judgement until I have met you face to face. I am sure there is a man there who does care about humanity, and who does care about what matters most to his soldiers. I hope to one day be able to meet that man.

Major John Amadeo, Brigade Rear Det. Commander, I have heard your name. I would imagine we have crossed paths somewhere on Ft. Stewart. Would you know it if we had? Would you know how I felt if you saw me walking into your office next week? Do you know, when you hear a soldier’s name that he needs to save himself before he can save the world? And would you be the commander who cares enough about his soldier to let him do what is right? Would you make every attempt to honor that soldier by getting to know him before you judge him? OR…. Would you simply circle a word on a form letter, and pass it along, never even giving that soldier a chance? Never giving yourself a chance to know a MAN with more heart, more courage, more life than you will ever meet again. Sir… You did yourself a disservice when you never raised your eyes to get to know my husband before you judged him. I will not do the same in return. I have never met you. I cannot say, in truth, what kind of a man you are… nor can I say that I recommend disapproval of your life for having committed to continue in war.

Capt. Diogo Tavares, Company Rear Det. Command, I have seen your eyes. I trusted you, Sir, and I spoke in support of you to my husband. I saw a man who is a soldier, but who is a soldier because he cares about humanity, NOT because he understands or supports killing. I saw a man who seems to respect choices other than serving on the “killing fields,” for you continue to serve HERE, away from the conflict. You serve here, leaving work everyday to return to your family, and to golf, to laugh, to watch movies and to take long weekends, all the while telling your soldiers that they do not have the right to defend their own conscience. You deny their request to step away from killing and live as their conscience demands. You serve here, Sir, and yet you circled disapproval on a form letter denying my husband the rights that our constitution (the one all soldiers are ordered to defend) have given him, the “Right to Conscience,” the right to say that his beliefs will no longer allow him to participate in war. You are here, at a desk, in an empty office, ALIVE. I trusted you to know my husband, one of your soldiers, better than most, to know his sincerity better than most… and yet you failed. You let your soldier down, Sir. You never did know him, and now, it seems that you never will.

None of you gave my husband the chance to let him show you who he is. You signed a form letter, and circled one word. None of you dared to speak to my husband, none of you dared to face him, to look in his eyes and hear what he had to say, to know his conscience. Are you afraid? Do you, serving in Rear Detachment positions, also have thoughts of saying NO to war, of seeing a way far better than war as a solution to our problems. Did you not want to face what he might make you question within yourself? Surely, if you truly believed what you claim, you would have given him the chance that the Army regulations allow, and that you denied… and you would have let him have a reason so that he could offer his SINCERE response in defense of his actions against your reason.

Cpt. Victor Aqueche, CO Investigating Officer, I saw your eyes. I really do not believe that I saw a lie. And yet, as I read your recommendation, I was confused. You wrote that it was unbiased, and yet there was no mention of our conversations during the hearing. You wrote that you considered all facts brought to the light, and yet there was no mention of what we spoke of, and what you admitted during the hearing to having a full understanding of. Did you forget, Sir… or were you afraid to see the truth? All soldiers put away their feelings when training for war. My husband did just as he was trained to do, and closed down his humanity, and became a robotic killer, as did you. A year before the war, Kevin and I met. Three months before the war, we married. And after his deployment, he returned and we began living a life that gave him his feeling back. You see, Sir, I love my husband, and I will not let him be the robot he, and others, like yourself, had become. He didn’t want that, he doesn’t want that. Who in their right mind, with good conscience, would? BUT… we talked about this in the hearing, and you recognized then that it was a strong aspect to the change of my husband’s beliefs. We talked about his issues of stop/loss, how not re-enlisting would have been the easiest way for him to leave the military, but the military would not give him the easy way. We talked about his beliefs, how I watched him come to his decision over a period of time after he returned, how strong he is, and independent. You questioned why his thoughts had never been expressed to commanders and others around him, and I responded by telling you that he comes to his decisions on his own, and talks when he is SURE of what he has decided. You said you understood, and you accepted what we talked about. You did ME a disservice, Sir. I know this man better than anyone, and yet you did not include my testimony on my husband’s behalf in your recommendation. You spent two hours speaking with my husband, 15 minutes with me. You gave one paragraph to an alleged article that had my name on it, even after you had stated on record that any articles would not be included. You gave NOTHING to my testimony. You mentioned NOTHING about what you claimed to understand in your recommendation. You DISHONORED ME, Sir. And, you betrayed yourself in the process.

Cpt. Matt Temple, chaplain. I hesitated to type chaplain after your name, but it’s the position you serve -- rather, fill. Service, to me, would mean that you were doing the work. Sir, you failed both Sgt. Benderman and me with your lack of service to the chaplancy of the US Army. I wonder, Cpt. Temple, if you remember me? I wonder if you remember the 5 telephone calls we had from January 2004 until August 2004? I wonder if you remember the hour long phone conversations we had, discussing how we could see a much greater vision for what the US Army could be, both for the soldiers and their families? I wonder if you remember the conversation in which you told me that you were relatively new to your position, but that in just the short time that you were there, you could see how little was really done for the families of the soldiers, and how much work there was to be done before they were given real support and their true needs were addressed? I wonder if you remember the phone call following your battalion’s time at NTC, in California? We talked about the questions we both had in regard to deployment, and war. We talked about the military and how it could be used as a tool to promote positive growth in the lives of its members, if we could just find enough others who shared our vision. Do you remember? I do. You see, that conversation made an impact, and I passed it along to my husband. I told him, finally there is one person that I was confident he could talk to who would understand. I felt that there was one person who was strong enough in his convictions that he, as a chaplain, would be there and listen as my husband addressed his concerns and tried to define the actions he must take to calm his conscience. You failed me, Sir. You failed my husband and you failed your service. I trusted you, Matt. I spoke with you from my heart, and talked to you about the true sense of my concerns with the military, in particular what it was doing to my husband. You NEVER REALLY LISTENED. Do you remember the emails, beginning in October, that you and my husband, Sgt. Kevin Benderman, exchanged? Do you remember, from October on, ending every email with a comment, “We have to talk about this more,” or “I would be happy to speak with you about this in person.”? Do you remember? Which is the truth, Sir, what you expressed to me, what you expressed to my husband, when offering both of us your support as the Battalion Chaplain? OR is the truth that you hide behind your commission reward plan, and you choose to fill the role of a chaplain, but never did intend to SERVE. Faith matters to me, and to my husband. Faith in myself, and in those in the service of God who tell me that they are there for those I care about as they search for the true answers to questions of their conscience. I trusted you, Matt. I had faith in you. Who should I put my faith in now, Chaplain Temple?

I know what it is like to be betrayed. Each one of you in Sgt. Kevin Benderman’s chain of command must as well. The difference is, Sgt. Benderman and I retain our integrity. We were betrayed by others than ourselves. Chaplain Temple, Cpt. Aqueche, Cpt. Tavares, Maj. Amadeo, Lt. Col. Nicholle, Col. Kidd, Brig. Gen. Byrne, commissioned officers in the US Army, for you the feeling must be far worse, a feeling I never could imagine -- YOU have betrayed one of your own soldiers, and his family. By not standing to defend what you have sworn to defend -- our Constitution -- by backing down, by hiding behind letters of form, and nothing but excuses -- YOU, Sirs, HAVE BETRAYED YOURSELVES.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


YOU CAN'T FIGHT TERRORISM WITH RACISM
Colbert I. King, Washington Post, 7/3/05

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072901626.html

During my day job I work under the title of deputy editorial page editor. That entails paying more than passing attention to articles that appear on the op-ed page. Opinion writers, in my view, should have a wide range in which to roam, especially when it comes to edgy, thought-provoking pieces. Still, I wasn't quite ready for what appeared on the op-ed pages of Thursday's New York Times or Friday's Post.

A New York Times op-ed piece by Paul Sperry, a Hoover Institution media fellow ["It's the Age of Terror: What Would You Do?"], and a Post column by Charles Krauthammer ["Give Grandma a Pass; Politically Correct Screening Won't Catch Jihadists"] endorsed the practice of using ethnicity, national origin and religion as primary factors in deciding whom police should regard as possible terrorists -- in other words, racial profiling. A second Times column, on Thursday, by Haim Watzman ["When You Have to Shoot First"] argued that the London police officer who chased down and put seven bullets into the head of a Brazilian electrician without asking him any questions or giving him any warning "did the right thing."

The three articles blessed behavior that makes a mockery of the rights to which people in this country are entitled. . .

Reportedly, after Sept. 11, 2001, some good citizens of California took out after members of the Sikh community, mistaking them for Arabs. Oh, well, what's a little political incorrectness in the name of national security. Bang, bang -- oops, he was Brazilian. Two young black guys were London bombers: one Jamaican, the other Somalian. Muslim, too. Ergo: Watch your back when around black men -- they could be, ta-dum, Muslims. . .

What the racial profilers are proposing is insulting, offensive and -- by thought, word and deed, whether intentional or not -- racist. You want estrangement? Start down that road of using ethnicity, national origin and religion as a basis for police action and there's going to be a push-back unlike any seen in this country in many years.

------

Contributed by
Moushumi Kabir
Atlanta, GA