Blog #22 - Free speech for soldiers?

We saw in the film, The Great War, Pt. 5, "The Mutiny", how Siegfried Sassoon was dealt with when he spoke his mind about the war and the change it had undergone by 1917 into one of carnage and conquest. 
He published this statement against the war and then was sent off to Craiglockhart (the sanitarium). 

"I am making this statement as an act of willful defiance of military authority, because I believe that the War is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it. I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this War, on which I entered as a war of defence and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest. I believe that the purpose for which I and my fellow soldiers entered upon this war should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them, and that, had this been done, the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation. I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust. I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed. On behalf of those who are suffering now I make this protest against the deception which is being practised on them; also I believe that I may help to destroy the callous complacency with which the majority of those at home regard the contrivance of agonies which they do not, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realize." 1

One thing to remember is that Sassoon went back on his own to go fight with his men, not necessarily b/c he regained his faith in what he was fighting for. 

One recent example of how free speech for active duty soldiers was being tested was in 2006 when anti-war groups like MoveOn.org began recruiting soldiers to lobby their Congressman to push for a time table to withdraw from Iraq. http://www.nysun.com/national/active-duty-gis-being-recruited-to-lobby-congress/42334/   Part of the petition that the 213 active duty soldiers had signed (as of October 26, 2006) stated:
     "As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq."


Something like this (a petition to Congress) had been done during Vietnam and news of this had inspired some of the active duty soldiers to create a group to join w/ MoveOn and solicit names.  In the article, a spokesperson for the Pentagon stated that it has no problem with members of the military contacting their Congressman personally as long as they don't claim to speak on behalf of the entire military or their unit:

"The members of the Armed Forces are free to communicate with their members of Congress in a lawful manner that does not violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In regards to the media teleconference, our position is that members of the Armed Forces that choose to speak to the press in their private capacity may do so, but must not do so in uniform and must make clear that they do not speak on behalf of their military unit, military service, or the Department of Defense unless they are authorized to do so"

However, when a soldier's free speech interferes with his ability to do his duty like Lt. Ehren Watada, the first military officer to refuse to fight in Iraq, as he faced a court martial at Fort Lewis, Washington in 2007. 3  He spoke at a veterans' national convention group called Veterans for Peace in Seattle and publicly refused to serve in the Iraq war b/c he deemed it morally wrong and illegal. 

The U.S. Army court-martialed him and it ended in a mistrial, and an attempt at a 2nd court martial was blocked by a federal judge as double jeopardy, a right found in the 5th Amendment (which means being found guilty of the same crime 2x, though I don't know how that's technically possible since the first trial didn't find him guilty of anything).  Lt. Watada's lawyers apparently tried to put the Iraq war on trial (examining the legality and morality of it vs. Lt. Watada's refusal to serve) and almost all of the lieutenant's character witnesses were tossed as well for being irrelevant. 

Here's Fox News' Michelle Malkin's take on Watada's mistrial in 2007: http://michellemalkin.com/2007/02/07/the-lefts-definition-of-a-herobreaking-mistrial-in-watada-case/

This whole fiasco ended when the Dept. of Justice eventually dropped the case against Lt. Watada in May 2009, and the Army accepted his letter of resignation at the end of Sept. 2009.  But his case brings up several difficult issues:

1. Do soldiers have the right and obligation to resist an order they believe is immoral? Why or why not?

2. We have established that soldiers have some form of free speech.  When that speech crosses the line into refusal to obey orders or criticize the commander / President (remember General MacArthur in the Korean War example I gave last week), then that's another issue.  Do you agree with this concept of free speech for soldiers?  Why or why not? 

Due Monday, May 24.  150 words minimum. 


Sources:
1. http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ww1lit/education/tutorials/intro/sassoon/declaration.html Oxford's Siegfried Sassoon poetry collection.
2. PBS's The Great War website link page http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/web.html
3. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/01/05/18344326.php Lt. Watada's court martial
4. Ehren Watada's story at http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/blogcategory/22/39/

Blog #21 - Did capitalism destroy Africa?

We just got done studying capitalism and how the drive to compete and win made the British and Germans the top European countries in the late 1800s.  America, during this time period, also strove to be the #1 steel maker and financial capitol center in the world, but unlike Britain, Germany and France, the U.S. didn't have to search too far for resources b/c they were right in our own backyard. 

The Europeans looked to Africa for valuable mineral resources, timber, rubber and other resources in the 1800s which then spurred a huge land grab and a race for colonies which the British and French won by 1914.  Even before this new age of industry, Africa had been stripped of its human resources during the slave trade - potentially 20 million people either killed or enslaved during the kidnapping to the New World. 

"Capitalism fuelled the slave trade, the profits from which were used to fuel the industrial revolution, which halved the population of Africa (leading to between 40-100 million people being killed or enslaved and taken out of Africa), it also fuelled the imperialism and conquest which left millions of dead and left a legacy of poverty, suffering and misery" 1 http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_Capitalism_has_fostered_imperialism,_exploitation,_and_suffering

Africans grew cash crops like coffee and cotton and mined gold, salt and silver that had no nutritional value for their own families' food needs.  Therefore, African families starved in many different imperialized nations.  Also, there was the "soft power" of imperialism - the non-hard factors of imperialism like culture, religion, and economic influences like movies, TV and music (in today's life). 

Today, Africa is still stripmined for diamonds and coal, Nigeria is drilled for oil, and the Chinese look to seize Africa as the next world market for its cheap place in the world for everything from toys to shoes (Nike) to computers (Sony).  However, Africa has become the dumping and testing ground for almost every single kind of weapon imaginable.  Arms dealers have supplied countless numbers of weapons for many of the civil wars around the continent.  In fact, the Chinese are pumping billions of light arms into Sudan fueling their civil war against the Christians in the Darfur region.  Potentially, 20% of all light weapons in the world are in Africa. 2

Also, Joseph Kony recruits children soldiers from nrothern Uganda and the surrounding region for his Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) so that he can try to topple the Ugandan government - a fight only he continues to wage with little to no support from the Ugandan people.  He is currently hiding out in the Congolese National Rain Forest Parks where he is untouched and encourages / forces the local people to burn protected trees for charcoal.  These actions damage the rain forest and encroach upon protected gorilla habitats too.  See http://www.invisiblechildren.com/ for more info on the LRA and Joseph Kony. 

Watch the Frontline World video on Gunrunners from Sierra Leone - http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/sierraleone/ 


Question:
Was it capitalism that made Africa such a mess?  If so, how did it destroy this beautiful place? 
 - If it wasn't capitalism, what was it that has caused all of this turmoil? 

Due Thursday, May 13. 150 words.
Sources:
2. African Union: http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/AUC/Departments/PSC/Small_Arms.htm
3. China makes Africa its business, The New York Times.  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/world/asia/18iht-africa.2528892.html

Blog #20 - Which "new" philosophy is your favorite / least favorite and why?

We have been studying 18th and 19th Century changes in philosophy in Europe and how the Industrial Revolution is sweeping away the old and rushing in some new radical ideas about how people view themselves, history and how they should treat each other.  You can check your notes from Ch. 19, Sec. 4. 

First, there are the economists like Thomas Malthus, Adam Smith and David Ricardo. 
1. Malthus was the one who examined the ideas of population and plants and felt that as long as the population grew faster than the food supply, the world would run out of resources to adequately feed and clothe and warm that population at the comfort level they had come to expect.  If things didn't change, people would die off, and countries might go to war over existing supplies of resources. 

2. Adam Smith wrote his amazingly popular book, The Wealth of Nations, the same year that the Declaration of Independence was signed.  In the book, he discussed the concept of The Invisible Hand (the self-regulating force of the marketplace) in which a growing economy lifts all boats, using the metaphor whether you're in a yacht, a canoe, a life raft, or a speed boat.  He also is a big proponent of the concept of laissez-faire where the gov't leaves the economy alone, b/c otherwise it would artificially and negatively influence the economy. 

3. With Ricardo, he also believed in laissez-faire too and opposed any help for the poor.  The free market should help the poor and that they need to learn how to save, work hard and limit their family size.  Ricardo's big idea was the Iron Law of Wages: the working class could not escape poverty b/c the wage increases won't cover enough of the necessities (food, shelter, clothes) to escape poverty since the prices will go up too. 

Then there are the utilitarians. 
4. Jeremy Bentham.

5. John Stuart Mill


How about socialism? 
6. Main ideas of socialism -


7. Karl Marx -



Please answer these two questions:
1. Which of these philosophers' ideas appeals the most to you?  Why? 

2. Which of these ideas doesn't appeal to you?  Why not? 

Blog due Tuesday 5/4 200 words