Conscientious Objection After 9-11-01

by Ann Fagan Ginger

Many young men and women have joined one of the U.S. military services in the past decade in order to solve problems in their own lives. While relatively few white, middle class, college students have gone this route, many young African Americans and youth from poor families have decided to join up in order to have a steady income at a respectable job, with educational and other benefits. None of them ever imagined, as none of us ever imagined, that they would be called upon to participate in the kind of military attacks against terrorists that the Congress has now authorized the President to embark upon.

Many of these young members of the Armed Services or the Reserves are suddenly faced with the realization that they do not want to participate in this war. Some are now reflecting that they really can't participate in killing civilians in the line of fire in the search for terrorists.

Each of these members of the Services has a right to know about Conscientious Objector discharges, which they may not remember or did not grasp in quick boot-camp training.

Don't we, as older lawyers and opponents of nuclear war, have a serious responsibility to address the lack of information on CO status among members of the Armed Services today? Gulf War COs

At the beginning of the so-called Gulf War in 1990 and 1991, many young men and women who had signed up for the Services and were attending colleges as well as putting in time as reservists faced the fact that they did not believe in the Gulf War. This led them to consider whether they should be in the military at all. Some decided, after deep reflection, that they actually could not kill anyone.

As in the Vietnam War, these men and women had to decide what to do: Whether to go against their new-found conscience and remain in the military; or to apply for status as a non-combatant and stay in the Service and go to the scene of war but participate only in medical work, not in actual combat or military work, or whether they actually had to get out of the Service and serve time doing alternative civilian service, without any pay from the U.S., and losing various educational benefits (having tuition paid while they were in the reserves, etc.)

It was the actual preparation for participation in the new undeclared Gulf War that led these young people to question their service in the U.S. military. One young woman suddenly came to question her role in the medical corps when she was taught triage in preparation for being sent to the Gulf in 1990. She realized that she would be required not to try to save the life of the soldier with the worst wounds, but to help the soldier who would be more likely to be able to return to battle soon. See the case of Aimee Allison, whose application for Conscientious Objector status was recommended by the Army hearing officer, rejected by the military reviewing agency in Washington and then granted on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the Federal District Court in San Francisco. Application of Allison, Dept. of Army, Hqtrs 6th U.S. Army, 2d Hospital Center; Allison v. Stone, ND CA #C 92-1541 BAC. There are several kinds of Conscientious Objectors

A "Conscientious Objector" is a person who is "opposed to war in any form based on religious training or belief," or based on a "parallel belief" that plays the same role in their life that religious training and belief plays in the life of a religious believer.

In 1965 the U.S. Supreme Court held that, under the First Amendment protection of the exercise of religion, a person whose belief plays a role in his life parallel to the role religion plays in the life of a religious believer also qualifies for CO. This is called the "parallel belief" belief test. Seeger v. U.S., 380 U.S.163 at 164-65.

A person who is opposed to participation in war in any form and will no longer do any type of Service in the military, even medical or nonmilitary work, should apply for a discharge as a 1-O. A person who is unwilling to do any military work but is willing to remain in the military to do medical or other nonmilitary work is a 1-A-O.

The Service will hold a hearing at which the applicant will hear what the Service psychiatrist and Chaplain testify about whether the applicant has a sincere commitment to the CO belief. The applicant can also present testimony of a religious counselor, professor, or other person who knows their religious training or belief or parallel belief.

If someone is discharged from the Service as a CO, they will lose all educational benefits, may be told to repay the Service for tuition paid by the Service, and will be required to do unpaid civilian work to complete their term of service as a 1-O. On a Less Urgent Note to All

Today there is no formal draft or selective service system in this country. Nonetheless, in order to be able to have a draft at some moment in the future, every young man must, at age 18, register with his Selective Service Board. Failure to register is grounds for denial of a student loan and other problems.

Until the moment when the actual draft stopped some years ago, any person, when registering for the draft, could mark on the original form that he considered himself to be a "conscientious objector" to war so that the board knew from the beginning which young men were applying for 1-O or 1 A-O status. Today there is no place on the registration form to supply this information, which some lawyers think could be challenged as a limitation on First Amendment rights.

If a young man, at age 18, or thereafter at any point, decides or discovers that he is a Conscientious Objector, that young man can notify his draft board of that fact. If he is called up for military service, the Board must hold a hearing on whether this is true: that the applicant is a sincere CO.

In the present situation, I recommend that any man who has registered for the draft and who is a CO should let his Draft Board know this fact. This can be done by a simple letter sent to the Draft Board at its address (which is probably on the registration card the young man has). If there is no address, such a letter could be sent to the Draft Board of such and such a region, and sent to the Post Office as the address, with a return receipt requested card for proof of delivery.

It is very important to have a copy of the letter being sent. A man can write the letter, make two copies, send the original to the Board, then send a copy to himself, and not open that letter but keep it on file. If the letter is ever needed in court or in a hearing to prove it was sent, it can be produced and the date on the envelope will be proof of that fact. The man should also keep a copy for his own files so he knows what he wrote when.

Since the CO status will avoid the possibility of being killed, not out of fear of being killed or just to save his life, but on the basis of a strong belief that plays a large role in his life, it is a good idea for the man to also send a letter to the Draft Board once a year or so to indicate that he is still a CO and describing things he has done that prove this is still true.

I will be very happy to talk or write or answer letters or questions about any or all of this.

Note: This is written as the law was in 1991 in the Gulf War, in which I served as an expert witness in some CO cases that were won. The law has not changed basically since then.

Copyright 1999-2007. Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute. All rights reserved.