U.S. soldier to plead case as objector

[estranged4life]

U.S. soldier to plead case as objector
2004-06-23
By Ron Jackson
The Oklahoman

FORT SILL -- The first U.S. soldier to refuse to return to Iraq will plead his case as a conscientious objector today at Fort Sill.

Pvt. Camilo Mejia, 28, will testify at the 1 p.m. hearing, which will be closed to the public. He will do so as a convicted military deserter serving a one- year sentence at the Fort Sill Correctional Facility.

A military court convicted Mejia on May 21 at Fort Stewart, Ga., for going absent without leave in October 2003 after he returned from Iraq for a two- week furlough. Mejia surrendered to the military in March, armed with a 55- page conscientious objector application and stories of prisoner abuses allegedly witnessed at the Al Assad Prison near Baghdad.

"It's an absolute travesty that he (Mejia) has been charged as a deserter," said Nancy Lessin, who is scheduled to testify on Mejia's behalf.

Lessin co-founded Military Families Speak Out in November 2002 when two military families protested the government's decision to wage war on Iraq. Lessin claims more than 1,500 military families have joined her organization, several of which are expected to attend a noon vigil outside the Fort Sill gates to protest Mejia's prisoner status.

"People have asked, 'Why did Camilo join the military? Didn't he know there was a possibility he might go to war? What right does he now have to do this?'" Lessin said. "True, soldiers do sign an oath that they will go to defend country and constitution, but there is also an implied vow that the government won't engage in some reckless, military misadventure.

"And that's the vow that we feel has been broken."
Mejia, a Costa Rican and Nicaraguan citizen, joined the Army in 1995 after his family moved to the United States. In 1998, he continued his military service by signing on with the Florida National Guard.

Mejia was deployed to Iraq as a staff sergeant with Company C, 1st Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment in April 2003. His rank was dropped to private after his court-martial, which created nationwide media attention.

A Web site dedicated to Mejia -- freecamilo.org -- champions his cause. On the site, Mejia is quoted as saying of his war experience, "At first they were happy to see us. Then we started setting up roadblocks, raiding their homes, killing civilians, and their attitude changed. The people didn't want us there any more, and we didn't want to be there."

Lt. Col. Ron Tittle, a Florida National Guard spokesman, is not sympathetic of Mejia's current problems. They are problems Tittle says Mejia could have avoided through legal military channels, or even by talking to an Army chaplain.

"We have had five Florida guardsmen killed in Iraq, and more than 100 who have been injured," Tittle said. "Our troops have served with honor and distinction. I suppose it kind of digs into the heart when one leaves and deserts his comrades."

[estranged4life]

Family of convicted deserter pleads for conscientious objector status

2004-06-23
By Sean Murphy
Associated Press Writer

LAWTON - Supporters of a soldier who refused to return to Iraq after a two-week leave urged the Army on Wednesday to give him an honorable discharge, even though he was convicted of desertion last month.

A military hearings officer from Fort Stewart, Ga., heard testimony from character witnesses in a closed hearing to determine if Camilo Mejia should receive conscientious objector status. The hearing was held at the Fort Sill Regional Correctional Facility, where Mejia is being held.

Dozens of Mejia's supporters and relatives held a vigil outside Fort Sill before the hearing. Supporters said at a news conference that Mejia's sincere beliefs led him to refuse to return to his Florida National Guard unit after a two-week leave in October.

"He listened to a higher power, which is the voice of his conscience," Mejia's mother, Maritza Castillo, said in Spanish through an interpreter.

Mejia, 28, was convicted in a military court at Fort Stewart, Ga., of desertion. He was sentenced to a year in military prison, received a dishonorable discharge and was reduced in rank from staff sergeant to private.

A report from Wednesday's hearing will be forwarded to the Department of the Army, which will decide whether to approve Mejia's request.

In his conscientious objector application, Mejia claims he saw Iraqi prisoners treated cruelly while he was overseeing the processing of detainees at al-Assad, an Iraqi air base occupied by U.S. forces.

Among those testifying Wednesday was Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who leaked the 1971 Pentagon Papers, a top secret study of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Ellsberg met with Mejia for two hours before the hearing, and said the soldier is "very sincere in his beliefs."

Raymond Schmidt, 40, owner of a military surplus store across the street from the vigil, said he believes Mejia deserved to be punished.

"He signed up knowing someday he'd have to fill a role," Schmidt said.

[estranged4life]

Soldier's imprisonment sparks demonstration

2004-06-24
By Ron Jackson
The Oklahoman

LAWTON -- Thunderous echoes of artillery fire from nearby Fort Sill provided an ironic sound effect to a war protest staged Wednesday on behalf of a convicted U.S. Army deserter, Pvt. Camilo Mejia of Miami, Fla.

About two dozen protesters, some from as far away as California, rendezvoused in Lawton to speak out against Mejia's imprisonment at the Fort Sill Regional Correctional Facility. Mejia, 28, was taken to Fort Sill after being court-martialed May 21 at Fort Stewart, Ga., for desertion. He is serving a one-year sentence.

The afternoon protest coincided with a closed military hearing at Fort Sill on Mejia's application for conscientious objector status -- a document filed in March after he went AWOL during a two-week furlough from Iraq. A decision will be made on Mejia's application by the Department of the Army.

Mejia, activated from the Florida National Guard last year, served six months in Iraq prior to his furlough and disappearance.

Mejia received national attention during his flight by taking his story to CBS correspondent Dan Rather on "60 Minutes." Mejia, a dual Guatemalan and Costa Rican citizen, since has spoken and written about prisoner abuses he allegedly witnessed at the Al Assad detainee camp near Baghdad, as well as the killing of innocent civilians. Consequently, the line between traitor and hero has been debated in the arena of public opinion.

"Camilo is following his heart in that this is an illegal and immoral war," said Mary Harren, who traveled from Wichita, Kan., to represent an anti-war organization called Pax Christi. "He's a proud inspiration for the rest of our youth. ... This democracy -- or what we have left of it -- can be proud of young men like Camilo."

Among those gathered to support Mejia were his mother, Maritza Castillo, and aunt, Norma Castillo. Both women spoke at a news conference convened under a shade tree at Lawton's Elmer Thomas Park.

"I'm struggling day by day, minute by minute, but it's not going to stop until Camilo is free," said Maritza Castillo, who flew in from New York. "Camilo is always in harmony with himself and his decision. And I'm very proud of what he is doing."
Some are ashamed.

Norman businessman Larry Courtney made a special trip to Lawton to express his views. The Army veteran held an American flag aloft as he faced the that leads into the historic post where he once was stationed.

"I have no sympathy for him (Mejia)," Courtney said. "He signed up to do a job, and he should have done it. The military isn't the kind of job you can just up and quit. If he ever thought he might have had to claim conscientious objector status, then maybe he should have never joined the military."

[strandinthewind]

Interesting case. He will most likely lose because, right or wrong, the military cannot have everyone be a CO, etc.

BUT, the interesting part to me is if he reported that abuse and can prove it existed and the military did nothing abiout it, he will be very popular. It also may substantiate in some way his CO case.

Thanks for posting.

[dissention]

He'll probably lose, but I'll cross my fingers for him. These kinds of stories make my blood boil, they're heartbreaking. I can't imagine the things he witnessed while in Iraq, those experiences are all the punishment he needs. Poor guy.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

Soldier's imprisonment sparks demonstration


"I have no sympathy for him (Mejia)," Courtney said. "He signed up to do a job, and he should have done it. The military isn't the kind of job you can just up and quit. If he ever thought he might have had to claim conscientious objector status, then maybe he should have never joined the military."

He was told to break the law. Someone's going to have to make this case. Unfortunately, it's going to have to be him.
I don't know what he saw or did at Abu Gharib but I think his case has to be made. The Geneva Convention was ignored. I don't blame the guy for being a conscientious objector to that. He served for a long time so the deserter charge is rather ridiculous to me. I'm sure at no point he ever agreed to commit war crimes.
God help him.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

He was told to break the law. Someone's going to have to make this case. Unfortunately, it's going to have to be him.
I don't know what he saw or did at Abu Gharib but I think his case has to be made. The Geneva Convention was ignored. I don't blame the guy for being a conscientious objector to that. He served for a long time so the deserter charge is rather ridiculous to me. I'm sure at no point he ever agreed to commit war crimes.
God help him.

Now, let's be fair, saying he was exposed to this is not and should not be enough. He has to prove he was told to break the law - and regardless of how long he served, if his contract was not up, the law compelled him to stay to its fruition. I mean I am sure all CO's say things to get them out of their duty. He has to prove it. AND - even then, he should have followed the military's procedure for reporting such events. I am unsure, but I do not think military law allows a prisoner to refuse to return to duty way after the fact. In fact, his not reporting it when he saw it is probably another violation. So, although his heart may be in the right place now, he went about it in an illegal method and most likely will go to prison for it. If he had followed the rules, this could have been avoided and, depending on the situation and assuming he is telling the truth, less people could have been tortured. Instead, he appears to have taken the law into his own hands, which is hardly ever going to win in a criminal court - nor would society want it to - anarchy is the alternative So, while I feel for this guy, I think he has made his situation worse.

As for the Geneva Convention, my understanding is the U.S. is adhering to it in Iraq. but not in Afganistan as far as Al-Q is concerned. They are correct regarding Al-Q because Al-Q does not fall within the GC's narrow combat rules nor are they civilians as the GC defines that. This is a good thing because if Al-Q did, all we could do with the captured people pretty much is ask them is their name, rank, and other such trivial info. I think we need more info. from these people than that (of course without torture). Interestingly, the combat provisions of the GC would apply to the military prisoners in Iraq, but not to the garden variety criminals who were not incarcerated in any type of battle. Any treaties we are in with Iraq (there are a few both countries (along with others) have singed) would also control and perhaps be more inclusive than the more limited GC. In the end, it has not been established the torturous actions of the soldiers (which were horrible and I am not defending them) rose to the level of official U.S. policy. If they cannot prove that (and I hope we cannot no matter how much I hate W) - then the U.S. is not in violation of the stadards set forth in the GC and any applicable treaties, the soldiers are and they will be prosecuted accordingly. It is unfair to hold the entire US accountable for them, unless it can be proven the U.S. officially sanctioned it and the people tortured fell within the def.'s of these laws. So, far, that has not been proven and the doc.'s the WH released last week negate it further.

I know this sounds like a techinicality, but I think it is unfair to place the U.S. in such a bad light because IMO doing so places all soldiers in this horrendus and quasi-felonious mind set. I think the vast majority of the soldiers there are the good guys and do not deserve such treatment by association

Tone: This was said in a friendly not finger snapping manner

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Now, let's be fair, saying he was exposed to this is not and should not be enough.

I said I didn't know what he had witnessed or been told to do. I am quite sure however, that he was told to break the law. We'll see.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

So, although his heart may be in the right place now, he went about it in an illegal method and most likely will go to prison for it.

And the proper procedure for violating the Geneva Convention according to military rules is what?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know this sounds like a techinicality, but I think it is unfair to place the U.S. in such a bad light because IMO doing so places all soldiers in this horrendus and quasi-felonious mind set. I think the vast majority of the soldiers there are the good guys and do not deserve such treatment by association

Don't start that anti American, rah rah, you don't support the troops rhetoric with me.
Did I say they were bad? No. That's the current administration's bag of tricks. When are they going to be accountable or apologize?
Do you honestly think they even give a **** about Camilo, other than the fact that he's a nuisance to them?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

I said I didn't know what he had witnessed or been told to do. I am quite sure however, that he was told to break the law. We'll see.

You first said "He was told to break the law." I drew my conclusion from that because although you said later that "I don't know what he saw or did at Abu Gharib but I think his case has to be made" - the articles indicate he served at the "Al Assad detainee camp near Baghdad, as well as the killing of innocent civilians. So, I did not equate the two

How can you be certain, you were there? This guy is a prosecutor's dream. I mean if it was so bad, why did he wait - people may have died or been tortured because of that. Do not tell me he was scared. He was a combat soldier based on what I read - so that defense looses a TON of credibility based on that fact. Then, he waits until he is back in the states and runs away. All of those things do not support his credibility. So, if it is his word against their word, he will lose. Also, if he did not report an infraction of the rules, I am pretty sure that is a source for reprimand as well, although I do not know for sure.

Yet, you just assume the US is the bad guy and ordered this guy (who essentially has no credibility or proof that I have seen to support his claim) or the people he saw to torture people and kill innocent civilians. You have to admit that smacks of more than a little bias But, I still love ya anyway

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

And the proper proceedure for violating the Geneva Convention according to military rules is what?

Look it up

And, for that matter, please read the GC BEFORE asserting we are in violation of it When you read it, you will see Al-Q did not fall into the def. covering capture of a nation's soldiers as well as other parts.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Don't start that anti American, rah rah, you don't support the troops rhetoric with me.
Did I say they were bad? No. That's the current administration's bag of tricks. When are they going to be accountable or apologize?
Do you honestly think they even give a **** about Camilo, other than the fact that he's a nuisance to them?

I would have bet a $100 you were gonna come back with that. I am not saying anyone is anti-american. I am saying that guilt by association is wrong and this guy and any other criminals have to be prosecuted and it angers me that they (and who knows who "they" includes) are casting the USA in a bad light. That is hardly the same as calling you anti-American

[gldstwmn]

I'm sorry Strand. Sometimes when we are having these discussions, I completely forget that in your heart and mind, you still think that the United States instigating this war is the right thing to do. When I look at it that way, I can see and understand your viewpoint clearly.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I would have bet a $100 you were gonna come back with that. I am not saying anyone is anti-american. I am saying that guilt by association is wrong and this guy and any other criminals have to be prosecuted and it angers me that they (and who knows who "they" includes) are casting the USA in a bad light. That is hardly the same as calling you anti-American

Wait. You were calling me anti-American?