Dem. representative proposes constitutional amendment which could allow Obama, Bush, or Clinton to be dictator for life

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Sponsor: Rep. José Serrano [D-NY16](no cosponsors)
Cosponsors:

Text: Summary | Full Text
Status:  Introduced Jan 6, 2009
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee …
House Vote …
Senate Vote …

This resolution is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. If this joint resolution proposes an amendment to the Constitution, three-fourths of the states must ratify the proposal. A joint resolution, if not amending the constitution, may also be signed into law by the president. [Last Updated: Apr 5, 2010 6:37PM]
Last Action: Feb 9, 2009: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Related: See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this resolution. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.

More proof that blowing up “brown people” is now a “liberal” virtue

Massive Ordnance Penetrator: Another Sign Obama Will Strike Iran

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
October 7, 2009

The Pentagon has put a new weapon on the fast-track. The Massive Ordnance Penetrator is a 30,000-pound bomb designed to hit targets buried 200 feet below ground. Earlier this year, the Pentagon comptroller sent a request to shift funds to the House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees in order to fast forward the development and procurement of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, according to ABC News. The notification was included in a 93-page “reprogramming” request that included hundreds of items.

	Boeing employees proudly display the Massive Ordnance Penetrator.

See the Pentagon memo here.

The comptroller said the Pentagon planned to spend $19.1 million to procure four of the bombs, $28.3 million to accelerate the bomb’s “development and testing”, and $21 million to accelerate the integration of the bomb onto B-2 stealth bombers.

The Air Force 708th Armament Systems Group at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida awarded a $51.9 million contract on October 2 to the Boeing Co. in St. Louis to integrate the Massive Ordnance Penetrator on a B-2 stealth bomber, the Military & Aero website reported on October 4.

“The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON.” It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran),” the notification states.

“This is not the kind of weapon that would be particularly useful in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it is ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran,” ABC notes.

“A deep underground tunnel facility in a rock geology poses a significant challenge for non-nuclear weapons. Such a target is difficult to penetrate, except possibly near an adit, and the likelihood of damaging critical functional components deep within the facility from an energy release at the adit is low. Past test experience has shown that 2,000 lb. penetrators carrying 500 lbs. of high explosive are relatively ineffective against tunnels, even when skipped directly into the tunnel entrance,” explains GlobalSecurity.

MOP contains more than 5,300 pounds of conventional explosives inside of a 20.5-foot-long steel enclosure. The weapon is said to be able to penetrate up to about 60 feet of dirt and concrete, the Defense Daily reported on December 4, 2006.

The Pentagon has moved the MOP to the fast track because the Iran attack plan is now operational and will probably be carried out before the end of the year.

The corporate media is now gearing up for an attack by manufacturing census in much the same way they did in the lead-up to the devastating mass murder campaign on Iraq that ultimately resulted in more than a million dead Iraqis. “A majority of Americans are skeptical that diplomacy with Iran will succeed and say the U.S. should use military action if necessary to prevent the Iranian government from developing a nuclear weapon,” Bloomberg reported on October 6. “A Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey released today found 61 percent of Americans would support a military strike. Twenty-four percent said it is more important to avoid conflict even if that means Iran will end up building nuclear arms.”

Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, as the government and the corporate media claimed, and Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. In September, the U.S. intelligence community told the White House that Iran has not restarted its nuclear-weapons development program. Also in September, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, denied Israeli accusations that he has withheld information about Iran’s nuclear progress. Since 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly stated that it has found no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Moreover, as Juan Cole notes, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa in 2005 that states no Islamic state may possess or use atomic weapons because they kill masses of innocent civilians when used, which is contrary to the Islamic law of war, which forbids killing innocent non-combatants.

The only state in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons is Israel.

“Those who insist that Iran is trying to get a bomb have a difficult time explaining why Khamenei forbids it as un-Islamic and why the president and others all deny it. It is possible that they are lying, but their denials at least have to be noted and analyzed. The skeptics also have to explain away why the 16 US intelligence agencies say after exhaustive espionage and investigation that there is no weapons program now and that there hasn’t been one for some time,” Cole writes.

None of these arguments matter to the global elite because they are determined to reduce Iran to a pile of smoldering rubble much the same way Iraq was reduced. After the Pentagon gets a green light and loads up its stealth bombers with MOPs and other munitions, the destruction will not be limited to Natanz and Qom and Iran’s illusory nuclear weapons program. Iran’s infrastructure will be targeted. Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program is merely an excuse for a larger objective — the wholesale destruction of Iranian society and civilization.

—————————————————————–

Barack Obama rules out cutting troops in Afghanistan
US President Barack Obama has ruled out cutting the number of troops deployed in Afghanistan or turning the war into a counter-terror campaign.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6267952/Barack-Obama-rules-out-cutting-troops-in-Afghanistan.html

Published: 9:47AM BST 07 Oct 2009

President Barack Obama did not signal whether he is prepared to send more troops to Afghanistan Photo: AP
In comments to congressmen during a meeting on America’s Afghan strategy late on Tuesday night, Mr Obama did not signal whether he is prepared to send more troops to the war zone, either the 40,000 his top commander wants or a smaller build up.
But he made clear he does not favour restricting the campaign to air strikes and counter-terrorism efforts.

Related Articles
Brown to blame for longer Afghanistan tours
Gates calls for calm after Afghanistan troop row
Leaders from both parties in the House of Representatives and the Senate held a 90-minute discussion with Mr Obama, with Republicans pushing his to follow the advice of his military commanders and Democrats saying he should not be rushed.
His top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has warned that more troops are needed to right the war, perhaps up to 40,000 more. Mr Obama already has added 21,000 US troops this year, raising the total to 68,000.
Mr Obama also gave no timetable for a decision, which prompted at least one pointed exchange. Senator John McCain told Mr Obama that he should not move at a “leisurely pace”.
That comment later drew a sharp response from Mr Obama, who said no one felt more urgency than he did about the war, and there would not be nothing leisurely about it.
Mr Obama may be considering a more modest buildup of troops, closer to 10,000 than 40,000, according to Republican and Democratic congressional aides. But White House aides said no such decision has been made.
The president insisted that he will decide on troops after settling on the strategy ahead. He told lawmakers he will be deliberate and also show urgency.
Mr Obama is examining how to move ahead with a worsening war that has claimed nearly 800 US lives and sapped American patience at home. The war was launched after the September 11 attacks on the US in 2001, to remove Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers and rid al-Qaeda of a home base from which to launch attacks.
Mr Obama said before the meeting that al-Qaeda had “lost operational capacity” as a result of the drone strikes that have targeted its leaders in Pakistan.
Natro meanwhile said on Tuesday it will step up efforts to train local Afghan forces in the coming weeks.

Glenn Beck’s “solution” to Obama’s “socialist” agenda: A “new 9/11″?

I was watching Glenn Beck’s show on Faux News today. Today, Beck was using the imminent approval of animal rights radical Cass Sunstein as his excuse to rail against America. Beck seems to be playing the part of a freedom fighter, but he is just playing a part.

Today, Beck used the socialist agenda of the Obama administration to hype the upcoming 9/12 Project. Apparently, the 9/12 Project is a “national day or service” where people all across the country will honor the 8th anniversary of the day after 9/11. See, on today’s show, Beck said “we were attacked on 9/11, and on 9/12 we united as one and threw away partisanship and divisiveness”. Beck then went on to say that since 9/12, America has once again allowed itself to be divided by partisanship.

So what feeling did I get from watching the show? The feeling I got was this: Glenn Beck wants a “new 9/11″ to once again “unite us as one”.

Maybe Beck knows something we don’t.

Keep in mind of the events that transpired prior to 9/11. Bush’s approval rating was sliding. There was the Enron debacle. And so many other things. And then 9/11 happened, and everybody stopped talking about Enron and whatever, and Bush’s approval ratings shot up into the 90s.

Currently, Obama’s approval rating is sliding. Some in the antiwar movement are questioning why we are still in Afghanistan. Many people are bickering back and forth over the healthcare reform issue. And many are outraged at government corruption, especially lobbyists gaining prominent government jobs in Obama’s administration, despite Obama’s campaign promise to hire no lobbyists. So could an international crisis of at least the same magnitude as 9/11 be on the horizon and make Americans forget about healthcare reform, the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and government corruption?

This wouldn’t be the first time Beck has called for a new 9/11. Watch the following clip:

An open message to liberals and conservatives: “You didn’t get mad when…”

(Click here to view full-size image.)

To the conservatives (taken from here):

Freepers, Birthers, Morons of all stripe, You didn’t get mad…

You didn’t get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn’t get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

You didn’t get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn’t get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn’t get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn’t get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn’t get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn’t get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.

You didn’t get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn’t get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn’t get mad when we didn’t catch Bin Laden.

You didn’t get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn’t get mad when we let a major US city drown.

You didn’t get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.

You finally got mad when.. when… wait for it… when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all ok with you but helping other Americans… well f**k that. That about right? You know it is.

You people have all lost your f**king minds. You are selfish, greedy, obnoxious, narcissistic, and frankly… stupid. Your pathetic little misspelled protest signs are embarrassing. Maybe you ought to find the smart person in your midst and let them make up all the signs, cause man, you look like a bunch of idiots. Also you’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

That’s the new liberal spin of whitewashing everything bad that the Obama puppet administration is doing. “Bush ruined the country and you said nothing, now it’s Obama’s turn to ruin the country. Now sit down and shut up.”

To the liberals:

Did you get mad when Rockefeller sabotaged a true investigation into MK Ultra?

Did you get mad when Harriman/Bush/Rockefeller blew JFK’s brains out in the bankers coup d’etat of 1963?

Did you get mad when they did the same to MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X?

Did you get mad when Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground worked with the FBI as agent provacateurs to execute Fred Hampton while he lied in his bed (as well as destroy the entire Black Panther Party and the Peaceful work of the SDS)?

Did you get mad when Larry Potts of the FBI and the Southern Poverty Law Center conspired with Army Intelligence Asset Timothey McVeigh and Terry Nichols to blow up children in OK City?

Did you get mad when Clinton/Larry Potts/CIA gunned down babies at close range at Waco?

Did you get mad when Patrick Fitzgerald covered up the FBI’s involvement in the ’93 WTC bombing?

Did you get mad when Clinton committed genocide in Boznia, Africa, and Iraq killing over 2,000,000 people?

Did you get mad when Obama is continuing the same genocides in Iraq and Africa?

Didyou get mad when Obama is still hiding torture?

Did you get mad when Obama is increasing surveillance of innocent American citizens?

Did you get mad when Obama is continuing the contracts with Blackwater?

Did you get mad when the international banking cartel used Obama just like Bush to steel over $23.7 Trillion from your unbourn children.

“You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite,  favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting amongst themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, that’s the beginning of getting out of slavery.”—Martin Luther King, Jr.

(Click here to view full-size image.)

“You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery
in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that?
He kept the slaves fighting amongst themselves.
But whenever the slaves get together, that’s the beginning of
getting out of slavery.”
—Martin Luther King, Jr.

Bushbama: Bush’s Search Policy For Travelers Is Kept by Obama

“Chaaaaange!”

————————————————-

Bush’s Search Policy For Travelers Is Kept
Obama Officials Say Anti-Constitutional Invasions of Privacy Will Grow
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/27/AR2009082704065_pf.html
By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 28, 2009

The Obama administration will largely preserve Bush-era procedures allowing the government to search — without suspicion of wrongdoing — the contents of a traveler’s laptop computer, cellphone or other electronic device, although officials said new policies would expand oversight of such inspections.

The policy, disclosed Thursday in a pair of Department of Homeland Security directives, describes more fully than did the Bush administration the procedures by which travelers’ laptops, iPods, cameras and other digital devices can be searched and seized when they cross a U.S. border. And it sets time limits for completing searches.

But representatives of civil liberties and travelers groups say they see little substantive difference between the Bush-era policy, which prompted controversy, and this one.

“It’s a disappointing ratification of the suspicionless search policy put in place by the Bush administration,” said Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. “It provides a lot of procedural safeguards, but it doesn’t deal with the fundamental problem, which is that under the policy, government officials are free to search people’s laptops and cellphones for any reason whatsoever.”

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday framed the new policy as an enhancement of oversight. “Keeping Americans safe in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully screen materials entering the United States,” she said in a statement. “The new directives announced today strike the balance between respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all travelers while ensuring DHS can take the lawful actions necessary to secure our borders.”

For instance, searches conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers should now generally take no more than 5 days, and no more than 30 days for searches by Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents. The directives also require for the first time that automated tools be developed to ensure the reliable tracking of statistics relating to searches, and that audits be conducted periodically to ensure the guidelines are being followed, officials said.

Such measures drew praise from House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who called the new policy “a major step forward,” and from Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), who introduced legislation this year to strengthen protections for travelers whose devices are searched.

But the civil liberties community was disappointed.

“Under the policy begun by Bush and now continued by Obama, the government can open your laptop and read your medical records, financial records, e-mails, work product and personal correspondence — all without any suspicion of illegal activity,” said Elizabeth Goitein, who leads the liberty and national security project at the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice.

Goitein, formerly a counsel to Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), said the Bush policy itself “broke sharply” with previous Customs directives, which required reasonable suspicion before agents could read the contents of documents. Feingold last year introduced legislation to restore the requirement.

Jack Riepe, spokesman for the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, said the guidelines “still have many of the inherent weaknesses” of the Bush-era policy.

Between October 2008 and Aug. 11, more than 221 million travelers passed through CBP checkpoints. About 1,000 laptop searches were performed, only 46 in-depth, the DHS said.

Bushbama now using “extraordinary rendition” against white-collar criminals

Extraordinary rendition for … white-collar criminals?

Daniel Tencer
Raw Story
Sunday, August 22, 2009

Opponents of the practice of extraordinary rendition are growing increasingly vocal about the case of Raymond Azar, a Lebanese construction contractor who was picked up by the FBI on allegations of bribery, shackled, blindfolded and flown to the United States for trial.

It’s a case that the Los Angeles Times referred to Saturday as the “first rendition under [President] Obama.”

In affidavits filed in federal court, Azar says he was denied food, placed in a freezing room and threatened with never seeing his family again unless he confessed to the charges, the Times reports.

The FBI denies only the claim that Azar was told he would never see his family again. The bureau says it followed “standard operating procedure” in bringing him to the United States.

Azar pleaded guilty last week in a US federal court to conspiracy to commit bribery, and faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Yet human rights groups and government watchdogs are growing increasingly alarmed by what they see as the adoption of “extraordinary rendition” practices to crimes that don’t involve terrorism.

Joanne Mariner, terrorism policy director at Human Rights Watch, called the case “bizarre” and told the Times: “He was treated like a high-security terrorist instead of someone accused of a relatively minor white-collar crime.”

Despite Azar’s guilty plea, the circumstances of his arrest and interrogation will likely lead observers to question the outcome of his trial. The Times reports that Azar signed documents he did not understand because he was “frightened for his immediate safety … and under the belief he would end up in the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib to be tortured,” according to his lawyers.

In an article about the case for the Huffington Post, human rights lawyer and journalist Scott Horton points to an article then-presidential candidate Barack Obama wrote for the journal Foreign Affairs, in which Obama advocated “ending the practice of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of law.”

In an audio interview, Horton told Democracy Now! that Obama “never went as far as to say no more renditions,” and the Azar case “shows … how the program is being carried forward. And to a large extent, it’s a trip back to renditions the way they occurred in the Clinton era. This is what we call ‘rendition to justice’.”

But Horton points out that “renditions have not been used in a case like this before,” even in the pre-Bush era. “They’ve been reserved for drug kingpins and terrorists.”

Added Horton: “These procedures, if they’re standard procedures, they’re procedures that we’ve seen employed before in connection with renditions. And in a criminal justice perspective, they’re really abusive.”

The Times describes the FBI sting that caught Azar:

Arrested along with Azar was Dinorah Cobos, 52, a naturalized American from Honduras. Cobos, who did not make the same claims of abuse, this week pleaded guilty to conspiracy and bribery.

Azar and Cobos worked for a Lebanese construction company, Sima Salazar Group, which was awarded more than $50 million in Pentagon contracts for reconstruction and supply work in Afghanistan. In December, according to the indictment, the pair offered to pay kickbacks to an Army Corps of Engineers officer in Kabul. In exchange, he agreed to approve $13 million in outstanding bills from Sima Salazar.

Over the next four months, according to the charges, more than $106,000 was wired to the officer’s bank account in Manassas. But the case was an FBI sting, and Azar and Cobos were arrested at Camp Eggers, a U.S. military base in Kabul, after being lured to a meeting April 7.

Bush and Obama: Fascism Is Fascism

Say Yes to Gaza (Unless a Democrat is President)

Say No To War – Unless A Democrat Is President

Another soldier is incarcerated for exposing the Bush/Obama wars as illegal

Hours Before Court-Martial, Army Resister Victor Agosto Speaks Out on Why He’s Refusing to Fight in Afghanistan
http://i3.democracynow.org/2009/8/5/hours_before_court_martial_army_resister
August 05, 2009

US Army Specialist Victor Agosto faces up to one month in jail for refusing to deploy to Afghanistan. After returning from thirteen months in Iraq, Agosto became a victim of the stop-loss program that has extended the tours of more than 140,000 troops beyond their contracts since 9/11. Just hours before his court-martial, Agosto speaks out from his military base at Fort Hood, Texas. [includes rush transcript]
http://i3.democracynow.org/2009/8/5/hours_before_court_martial_army_resister
Spc. Victor Agosto, US Army specialist who refused to deploy to Afghanistan. He will be court-martialed today and faces jail time.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to the growing movement of GI resisters in this country. A US Army specialist who refused to deploy to Afghanistan faces a court-martial today and up to a month in jail. Twenty-four-year-old Specialist Victor Agosto from Miami spent thirteen months in Iraq with the 57th Battalion. When he returned to the Fort Hood military base in Killeen, Texas last November, he thought his contract with the Army would end this summer. But Agosto became a victim of the stop-loss program that has extended the tours of more than 140,000 troops beyond their contracts since 9/11. After nearly four years with the Army, Agosto was told he would be deployed to Afghanistan.

When he returned to base, Agosto had become a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and decided not to go to Afghanistan. He went public with his decision, saying, quote, “There is no way I will deploy to Afghanistan. The occupation is immoral and unjust. It does not make the American people any safer. It has the opposite effect,” he said.

Well, Victor Agosto will be court-martialed in just over an hour from the time of this broadcast. He joins us now by telephone from Fort Hood, Texas.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Victor Agosto. Tell us where you are and why you have made this decision not to go to Afghanistan, after having served for more than a year in Iraq.

SPC. VICTOR AGOSTO: Well, right now I’m on Fort Hood. And I decided that I just—I couldn’t, in good conscience, deploy to Afghanistan. I don’t believe that we’re actually there to fight terror or that terror can even be fought on the battlefield. And then that’s basically—that’s basically it. I just—I don’t—I just can’t do it.

AMY GOODMAN: How did you come to this decision?

SPC. VICTOR AGOSTO: When I was in Iraq, I had done some reading. I thought about why I was actually there, why were we involved in these wars. And I read Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival, and it was from there that I realized that the concept that I had that we were there to help the people of Iraq, that America had some sort of moral superiority, was completely shattered from what I read there.

AMY GOODMAN: Are you applying for conscientious objector status?

SPC. VICTOR AGOSTO: No, I decided against that, because as far as the Army is concerned, a conscientious objector is someone who is opposed to all wars, and that’s not me. I believe that sometimes war is necessary in cases of legitimate self-defense and legitimate resistance.

AMY GOODMAN: You just feel Afghanistan is wrong.

SPC. VICTOR AGOSTO: Yes, I don’t feel that we’re making the world any safer by doing that. We’re just killing people and spreading suffering with no real justification.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, explain. You were supposed to—your tour of duty should have ended, or your service in the military, when?

SPC. VICTOR AGOSTO: Yesterday, actually.

AMY GOODMAN: Yesterday.

SPC. VICTOR AGOSTO: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: So why are you being sent back, or why are they trying to?

SPC. VICTOR AGOSTO: Why—I suppose they just need more people, so they stop-lossed me.

AMY GOODMAN: “Stop-loss” means they can just call you back, even though your term is supposed to end.

SPC. VICTOR AGOSTO: Yes. They can retain me past my original enlistment in order to deploy again.

AMY GOODMAN: Our next guest, Camilo Mejia, is the first GI who served in Iraq to have publicly resisted the war, and he was imprisoned for refusing to go back. We’re going to speak with him in a minute. He went underground. You’ve chosen, Victor Agosto, not to go underground, but actually to remain at Fort Hood. Why is that?

SPC. VICTOR AGOSTO: As I struggled with my decision, I learned of the effect of the GI resistance movement during the Vietnam War. And I thought that if I were to go AWOL, my commanders could tell other soldiers that—you know, that I left because I was scared, that, you know, I had other reasons, whereas if—whereas by staying on base, I can set an example for other soldiers to see that, you know, that I think this war is wrong, and I’m just not going to do it and that, you know, I think they should do the same.

AMY GOODMAN: What is the response of others on Fort Hood, as you’ve become this public symbol of GI resistance?

SPC. VICTOR AGOSTO: Well, they’ve generally been positive or neutral. I’ve had fellow soldiers come and want to shake my hand or flash me a peace sign or something like that. Some people have expressed their disapproval, but usually they’ll say something—they’ll start out by saying how much they respect me, but they disagree with what I’m doing. But I don’t really encounter a lot of—I don’t really encounter any bitterness towards my decision.

AMY GOODMAN: Victor Agosto, can you talk about your time in Iraq? Where were you stationed? What did you do there?

SPC. VICTOR AGOSTO: I was stationed at Forward Operating Base Q-West, and basically I worked at what’s called a technical control facility, where I configured computers, routers, switches, servers. But I never—I was never in combat. I never felt any danger. I never felt the need to fire my weapon. And that’s it.

AMY GOODMAN: What are you feeling right now? In just about an hour’s time, how exactly does the process happen?

SPC. VICTOR AGOSTO: I’ll be tried and—you know, be tried and likely convicted of refusing the order of a noncommissioned officer to SRP, which is a process that every soldier has to go through before they deploy. And then they’ll immediately take me to Bell County Detention Center, where I’ll probably serve thirty days.

AMY GOODMAN: Did it surprise you that President Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan?

SPC. VICTOR AGOSTO: No. No, it doesn’t, because he said he would do so during his campaign. Part of why I’m doing what I’m doing is because I don’t believe that any politician can end this war. I think that it has to be ended at the grassroots level. Soldiers, by refusing to fight, can bring about the end of the war.

AMY GOODMAN: What message do you have for other GIs, for other people in the military?

SPC. VICTOR AGOSTO: I would say that you would never—you’ll never regret following your conscience and that adherence to an oath is not a valid excuse for betraying your conscience.

AMY GOODMAN: US Army Specialist Victor Agosto, served a thirteen-month deployment in Iraq, is now refusing to go to Afghanistan. He is expected to be court-martialed in the next hour. And we will continue to follow his case, as we turn now to—best of luck to you, Victor Agosto.

SPC. VICTOR AGOSTO: Thank you, Amy.

—————————————————

Soldier Who Didn’t Obey Is Jailed
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/us/06soldier.html?hp
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
Published: August 5, 2009

HOUSTON — A soldier at Fort Hood who fought his deployment to Afghanistan and stopped obeying orders was sentenced to a month in jail and demoted to private in a military court on Wednesday morning.
Enlarge This Image

Associated Press

Victor Agosto was demoted to private and sentenced to 30 days in jail for disobeying orders.

Victor Agosto, a 24-year-old signalman with the III Corps, ripped a patch showing his specialist rank off his uniform after an emotional hearing in front of an Army captain in which he had told the court he believed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan violated international law, his lawyer, James M. Branum, said. Later, about 20 antiwar protesters cheered Private Agosto as he was taken to jail, the lawyer said.

“He’s not opposed to all wars; he is opposed to this war, because it is not a war of self-defense,” Mr. Branum said.

Under a plea agreement, Private Agosto will be discharged after he serves his time in jail in Belton, Tex., Mr. Branum said.

Col. Benton Danner, a spokesman for Fort Hood, said Private Agosto technically never refused an order to go overseas. Rather, in May, he refused to report to an office that takes care of the paperwork for overseas deployment, a relatively minor offense. Refusing an order to deploy or deserting during a battle carry much stiffer penalties, he said.

Private Agosto said he lost faith in the war efforts abroad after returning in late 2007 from a 13-month stint in Iraq, in which he worked with computers and saw no combat.

“I realized that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with making Americans safer,” he told The Associated Press in an interview this week. “After I got back, I started feeling guilty about my part in the occupation.”

This year, the Army informed him he would not be discharged in June as he had expected but would be deployed to Afghanistan. He stopped obeying orders then and was assigned to pulling weeds and sweeping up. He also became active in local antiwar protests.

Mr. Branum said Private Agosto’s stand against the wars was unusual in that he informed his superiors of his objections. Other soldiers who disagree with the wars simply break Army regulations to be discharged.