Veterans for Common Sense

The initiation of a war against Iraq by the self-styled “coalition of the willing” would be a fundamental violation of international law. International law recognises two bases for the use of force.

The first, enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allows force to be used in self-defence. The attack must be actual or imminent.

The second basis is when the UN Security Council authorises the use of force as a collective response to the use or threat of force. However, the Security Council is bound by the terms of the UN Charter and can authorise the use of force only if there is evidence that there is an actual threat to the peace (in this case, by Iraq) and that this threat cannot be averted by any means short of force (such as negotiation and further weapons inspections).

Members of the “coalition of the willing”, including Australia, have not yet presented any persuasive arguments that an invasion of Iraq can be justified at international law. The United States has proposed a doctrine of “pre-emptive self-defence” that would allow a country to use force against another country it suspects may attack it at some stage.

This doctrine contradicts the cardinal principle of the modern international legal order and the primary rationale for the founding of the UN after World War II – the prohibition of the unilateral use of force to settle disputes.

The weak and ambiguous evidence presented to the international community by the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to justify a pre-emptive strike underlines the practical danger of a doctrine of pre-emption. A principle of pre-emption would allow particular national agendas to completely destroy the system of collective security contained in Chapter Seven of the UN Charter and return us to the pre-1945 era, where might equalled right. Ironically, the same principle would justify Iraq now launching pre-emptive attacks on members of the coalition because it could validly argue that it feared attack.

But there is a further legal dimension for Saddam Hussein on the one hand and George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard and their potential coalition partners on the other to consider. Even if the use of force can be justified, international humanitarian law places significant limits on the means and methods of warfare.

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their 1977 Protocols set out some of these limits: for example, the prohibitions on targeting civilian populations and civilian infrastructure and causing extensive destruction of property not justified by military objectives. Intentionally launching an attack knowing that it will cause “incidental” loss of life or injury to civilians “which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated” constitutes a war crime at international law.

The military objective of disarming Iraq could not justify widespread harm to the Iraqi population, over half of whom are under the age of 15. The use of nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive attack would seem to fall squarely within the definition of a war crime.

Until recently, the enforcement of international humanitarian law largely depended on the willingness of countries to try those responsible for grave breaches of the law. The creation of the International Criminal Court last year has, however, provided a stronger system of scrutiny and adjudication of violations of humanitarian law.

The International Criminal Court now has jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity when national legal systems have not dealt with these crimes adequately. It attributes criminal responsibility to individuals responsible for planning military action that violates international humanitarian law and those who carry it out. It specifically extends criminal liability to heads of state, leaders of governments, parliamentarians, government officials and military personnel.

Estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq suggest that up to quarter of a million people may die as a result of an attack using conventional weapons and many more will suffer homelessness, malnutrition and other serious health and environmental consequences in its aftermath.

From what we know of the likely civilian devastation caused by the coalition’s war strategies, there are strong arguments that attacking Iraq may involve committing both war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Respect for international law must be the first concern of the Australian Government if it seeks to punish the Iraqi Government for not respecting international law. It is clearly in our national interest to strengthen, rather than thwart, the global rule of law.

Humanitarian considerations should also play a major role in shaping government policy. But, if all else fails, it is to be hoped that the fact that there is now an international system to bring even the highest officials to justice for war crimes will temper the enthusiasm of our politicians for this war.

THE EXPERTS

Don Anton, senior lecturer, ANU; Peter Bailey, professor, ANU; Andrew Byrnes, professor, ANU; Greg Carne, senior lecturer, University of Tasmania; Anthony Cassimatis, lecturer, University of Queensland; Hilary Charlesworth, professor and director, Centre for International and Public Law, ANU; Madelaine Chiam, lecturer, ANU; Julie Debeljak, associate director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law; Kate Eastman, Wentworth Chambers, Sydney; Carolyn Evans, senior lecturer, Melbourne University; Devika Hovell, lecturer, University of NSW; Fleur Johns, lecturer, Sydney University; Sarah Joseph, associate director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University; Ann Kent, research fellow, Centre for International and Public Law, ANU; David Kinley, professor and director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University; Susan Kneebone, associate professor, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law; Wendy Lacey, lecturer, Adelaide University; Garth Nettheim AO, emeritus professor, UNSW; Penelope Mathew, senior lecturer, ANU; Ian Malkin, associate professor, Melbourne University; Chris Maxwell QC, Melbourne Bar; Tim McCormack, Red Cross professor and director, centre for military law, Melbourne University; Sophie McMurray, lecturer, UNSW; Anne McNaughton, lecturer, ANU; Kwame Mfodwo, lecturer, Monash Law School; Wayne Morgan, senior lecturer, ANU; Anne Orford, associate professor, Melbourne University; Emile Noel, senior fellow, New York University Law School; Dianne Otto, associate professor, Melbourne University; Peter Radan, senior lecturer, Macquarie Law School; Rosemary Rayfuse, senior lecturer, UNSW, Simon Rice OAM, president, Aust ralian Lawyers for Human Rights; Donald Rothwell, associate professor, Sydney University; Michael Salvaris, senior research fellow, Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University; Chris Sidoti, professor, Human Rights Council of Australia; John Squires, director, Aust ralian Human Rights Centre, UNSW; James Stellios, lecturer, ANU; Tim Stephens, lecturer, Sydney University; Julie Taylor, University of WA; Gillian Triggs, professor and co-director, Institute for International and Comparative Law, Melbourne University; John Wade, professor and director of the Dispute Resolution Centre, Bond Univer sity; Kristen Walker, senior lecturer, Melbourne University; Brett Williams, lecturer, Sydney University; Sir Ronald Wilson, former High Court judge and president, Human Rights Commission.

Hollywood, Florida (AP)- The nation’s largest labor federation declared its opposition Thursday to war against Iraq at this time, saying President Bush has not made a case for an attack without broad support from U.S. allies.

The executive council of the AFL-CIO, made up of 65 unions, ended its four-day meeting by unanimously passing the carefully worded resolution, which also says Saddam Hussein (news – web sites) must be disarmed — with “multilateral resolve, not unilateral action.”

Organized labor had tough words for President Bush, without naming him directly, saying the United States has squandered the goodwill it enjoyed after the terrorist attacks and insulted the nation’s allies.

“The president has not fulfilled his responsibility to make a compelling and coherent explanation to the American people and the world,” the resolution said.

Organized labor has typically backed military action in the past, including strong support for the Vietnam War. “By historical standards, this is unusual and this is significant,” Robert Bruno, labor professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said of Thursday’s resolution.

Morton Bahr, president of the Communications Workers of America, said the resolution was the result of a number of briefings on Iraq with officials who worked in the Clinton administration, including former national security adviser Sandy Berger and former chief of staff John Podesta.

“We had real broad input from these guys who had been living with this for a long time,” Bahr said, adding that organized labor has historically taken positions on wars that involve American workers and their families.

The resolution urges the Bush administration to pursue broad, global consensus to put pressure on Iraq, “ensuring that war, if it comes, will truly be a last resort.”

Labor officials ended the meeting with a sense of unity in a time of uncertainty, with mounting job losses, a poor economy and a presidential administration that is hostile to their cause, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said.

Perhaps the defining moment was Wednesday’s address by Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, which shocked and enraged labor leaders, Sweeney said.

They were particularly angry about her response to a question about the department’s proposed new financial reporting requirements. She read from a paper a list of criminal charges involving one union.

Teamsters Union President James P. Hoffa, a White House ally whom officials said was growing frustrated with Bush for his administration’s anti-union tactics and policies, was particularly enraged over Chao’s remarks. He told colleagues in the closed meeting that unions should support a presidential candidate friendly to working Americans.

Teamsters spokesman Bret Caldwell said Thursday that the union received calls from White House political director Ken Mehlman and Labor Department (news – web sites) lawyer Andrew Siff.

Substantive conversations have not yet occurred, Caldwell said, “but the White House certainly is concerned about our dissatisfaction with their approach to labor at this point.”

An insider trading scandal at a union-owned life insurance company had been expected to dominate the meetings this week. But the executive council took no action or stance regarding Ullico Inc., choosing to wait until a special committee completes its review and issues recommendations regarding the special stock sale that some union leaders took advantage of, netting millions of dollars. The Labor and Justice departments also are investigating, as is a grand jury.

AFL-CIO: http://www.afl-cio.org/

Abu Dhabi — The United States will not be satisfied with toppling Saddam Hussein, but also seeks to change other regimes throughout the Arab world.

Richard Perle, chairman of the U.S. Defense Advisory Board, said the regimes include those in Iran, Libya and Syria. Perle told Arab journalists during a trip to London last week that the U.S. tactic would differ for each country.

Perle, who is close to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is said to be one of the architects in the Bush administration on the policy of the toppling of the Saddam regime, Middle East Newsline reported. He has played a leading, if behind-the-scenes role in diplomatic, political and military aspects of the current Iraqi-U.S. confrontation as well as the war against terrorism.

“Change is needed in all those three countries [Iran, Libya and Syria], and a few others besides,” Perle told the London-based author and analyst Amir Taheri.

But Perle said the regimes in Iran and Syria could be changed without direct U.S. intervention. He said the United States would help democratic reform movements in those countries.

“I think Iran can be changed by the action of the Iranian people,” Perle told Taheri, an Iranian exile. “I believe that Syria, too, can organize change from within.”

In a separate interview with the London-based A-Sharq Al Awsat, Perle listed what Washington would demand from Damascus. The key demand is the expulsion of groups deemed by the State Department as terrorist groups.

“A lot will be required from Syrian President Bashar Assad not only in terms of reform, but also the closure of the offices of terrorist organizations and the return of Lebanon to the Lebanese.

Perle told Taheri that Washington would be tougher with Libya, which has been accused of developing medium-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction. But Perle would not elaborate.

“As for Libya, it is a weird case,” Perle said. “For the time being it is out of world reality. But the colonel knows that we have our eyes on him.”

Perle said he does not expect significant Arab opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East. He said the U.S. effort against the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has garnered the support of at least 12 Arab countries. He did not name them.

“Not a single Arab state is making the slightest move against our policy on this issue,” Perle said. “And at least a dozen are actively cooperating with us in whatever field we require. What interests me is that almost all Arab states are showing a sense of realism and an understanding of their own interests on this issue.”

London – Las week she told sorrowfully of the “sleepless nights” she had suffered over the prospect of war in Iraq.

But Cabinet rebel Clare Short reacted furiously yesterday when asked why she had put her job ahead of conscience by voting in favour of conflict.

The Overseas Development Minister is a well-known sceptic of war in the Gulf – yet refused to join the 121 Labour MPs who rebelled in the House of Commons over the issue on Wednesday night.

ANGRY: Ms Short

Could it be that Ms Short, who would almost certainly have had to resign her cushy job as a Cabinet minister if she had not backed Prime Minister Tony Blair, is not the woman of conscience she had led us to believe?

Asked by the Daily Mirror for her thoughts on the historic rebellion by Labour MPs, she angrily refused to comment. Outside her £1.5million home in Clapham, South London, she stormed: “How dare you come to my house. It’s rude and it’s inappropriate.”

Shaking with rage, she pointed her finger at me and said: “I will never speak to YOU – ever, ever, ever, ever.”

The Mirror had gone to her house to ask how she could reconcile her well-known opposition to war in Iraq with her decision to shun the revolt.

While she was unwilling to discuss the matter, Ms Short has in the past been far more keen to gain brownie points with the nation by backing the anti-war movement. In the process she has gained a popular reputation as one of the few Labour politicians whose views on Iraq chime with those of the public at large.

Just last week, after the massive 1.5 million-strong anti-war demonstrations in London and Glasgow, she went so far as to congratulate the marchers who had humiliated her Prime Minster.

She said: “I think the demonstrators helped to strengthen our Government, because everyone can see that Tony Blair needs the UN to have his country with him, so thank heavens all that happened.”

She even hinted she would consider resigning over the issue, adding: “I’m determined to do what I can with the leverage I have and to stand up for what’s right, come what may for me.”

But just 10 days later, when it came to putting her money where her mouth is, Ms Short decided the trappings of power were more important than morals.

She was among 255 toady Labour MPs, including the rest of the Cabinet, who voted down an anti-war amendment which declared that the argument for attacking Iraq was “as yet unproven”.

The two sides struck a middle ground: U.S. forces would train and support the Philippine armed forces but not engage in combat.

One year later, that caution is gone. The Pentagon last week announced its intention to send close to 2,000 U.S. military personnel to the southern Philippines where they would fight Abu Sayyaf directly.

Philippine resistance, however, has replaced U.S. reticence. In the face of protests and outrage from the Philippine people, the government is putting limits on the U.S. troops. Contradicting the Pentagon announcement of last week, Manila says U.S. troops will only serve in a training and advisory capacity.

The Pentagon this week is offering a more nuanced version of its announcement: officials emphasize the way the American troops will be used is up to the Philippine armed forces, as they will direct the mission.

They point out, however, that U.S. personnel are no longer under the constraints they once were.

“We are respectful of our agreement with Philippine government, and we have been closely consulting with them,” said Pentagon spokesman Cdr. Jeff Davis.

Philippine National Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes was in Hawaii on Monday meeting with U.S. Pacific Command officials. He will visit Washington on Friday to meet with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The Philippine constitution prohibits foreign forces from fighting on its soil, according to news reports.

Filipinos succeeded in closing U.S. military bases there in 1991 after some 90 years and are reluctant to see them return. For its part, the Pentagon maintains it has no interest in reestablishing bases on the archipelago.

Roughly 750 U.S. military personnel will deploy in the coming weeks to open a new front against the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group on Jolo Island in an unprecedented joint counter-terrorism operation, the Pentagon said last week.

Besides the special operations forces on Jolo and roughly 400 support personnel who will be based in Zamboanga, around 1,000 Marines of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit will be based off Jolo on the USS Essex. They will act as a quick reaction combat or evacuation force if needed and provide air support, medical services and command and control to the troops on the ground.

This move follows a six-month train-and-advise effort on Basilan Island last year known as Balikatan ’02, which was part of a $25 million counter-terrorism aid package for the Philippines.

The mission resulted in the capture or death of dozens of Abu Sayyaf members. Basilan Island is now under the control of the Philippine government. However, the mission apparently didn’t rout the rebels — but instead pushed hundreds of them further south.

Balikatan ’02 was not without American casualties. A U.S. soldier died in a motorcycle bomb attack last year in Zamboanga for which Abu Sayyaf was blamed.

The group is estimated to have several hundred members, but as many as 1,000 might have joined in the past two years to profit from kidnapping ransoms, according to the State Department.

Abu Sayyaf was formed in 1991 after it broke off from another Islamic separatist group, but according to the U.S. State Department, its first large-scale action was a raid on the town of Ipil in Mindanao in April 1995, which left 50 people dead.

In April 2000, a faction of the group kidnapped 21 persons, including 10 foreign tourists, from a resort in Malaysia. Also in 2000, the group abducted several foreign journalists, three Malaysians, and an American citizen.

In May 2001, the group kidnapped three U.S. citizens and 17 Filipinos from a tourist resort in Palawan, Philippines. Several of the hostages, including one U.S. citizen, were murdered.

Last year, Abu Sayyaf captured three missionaries. A rescue attempt resulted in the death of two, including American Martin Burnham.

Initial U.S. military assessment teams are moving to the Philippines “within days,” officials said.

Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

Jordan’s participation in a possible US-led war, although limited to date, caps a significant change in position by the tiny desert kingdom, from the neutrality it maintained during the 1991 Persian Gulf War to its current role as a key US military ally in the region.

Officials and analysts said that Jordan could become an important part of a US invasion if government officials allow American combat aircraft to fly over the country on the way to Iraq from aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea.

Already, officials in Amman and Washington say, Jordan has agreed to allow the basing of search-and-rescue operations and covert operations inside Iraq by US special forces in Jordan near the Iraqi border.

Yesterday’s acknowledgement by Prime Minister Ali Abu al-Ragheb and by Pentagon officials in Washington came after weeks of rumors that US troops were already in Jordan, speculation fueled by the sight of cargo planes landing and taking off where no airstrip was known to be and tents and signs of construction near As-Safawi in the desert that borders Iraq.

Concerned about stoking the anger of a population dead set against a US-led invasion of Iraq, the Jordanian government has repeatedly ruled out any assistance, or even allowing US troops here.

American officials, sensitive to Amman’s delicate stand against public sentiment, have refrained from discussing details of American military deployments to Jordan for fear of causing further political problems.

Until yesterday, Jordan had acknowledged only receiving six F-16 fighter jets and several Patriot Missile batteries. And yesterday, Abu al-Ragheb said the US forces deployed would be limited to a few hundred men that have ”no relation to any military campaign against Iraq.”

”These antimissile systems are to be manned by US troops with the help of Jordanian armed forces,” Abu al-Ragheb told the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television news channel. ”There will be a presence of American troops in defensive air bases for this purpose only.”

But one former senior Jordanian official said the government has offered logistical help for US forces in covert operations in Western Iraq.

An airstrip reportedly being built in the desert could be used to conduct search-and-rescue operations, or to insert special forces into Iraq for short missions to search for sites of Scud missiles that could be used to launch chemical weapons at Israel. Those operations could be broadened to include tacit approval of the use of airspace as the war intensifies.

The former official put the number of US military personnel at ”around 2,000,” although diplomats in Jordan suggest a smaller number. Pentagon officials, speaking on condition of anonymity yesterday, confirmed the 2,000 figure but declined to provide details on the troops’ location or mission.

The only visible sign of Jordan’s cooperation are the six F-16 fighter jets at Muafaq al-Salti airbase in Azraq, 60 miles east of the capital Amman and 150 miles west of the Iraqi border.

Jordan received the jets, the first of a batch of 16 donated by the United States to strengthen Jordan’s defense, in late January.

Jordan requested the three Patriot batteries last month during a visit by General Tommy Franks, the head of US Central Command, who will lead any operation in Iraq.

Abu al-Ragheb said the missile defense systems would be used to protect Jordan in the event that Israel and Iraq start firing missiles at each other, but he ruled out assisting Washington for any campaign against Iraq.

He said Jordan turned to the United States only when a deal to purchase a Russian S-300 antiballistic missile system fell through when Moscow was unable to deliver the weapons on time. ”We are not participating in any military campaign and will not be a launching pad for any attack against Iraq,” Abu al-Ragheb added.

Jordanian officials, like most Arab leaders throughout the region, cannot afford to appear to support a US-led campaign in which Arab Muslims will die.

Arab leaders are aware of the strong antiwar sentiment among their citizens, many of whom see the United States as an aggressor bent on regional domination.

Analysts, officials, and residents are convinced that a US invasion of Iraq would provoke an anti-American backlash in the region. The Jordanian government has a peace treaty with Israel but an overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian population.

King Abdullah’s military alliance with Washington has already angered the opposition here. Jordan’s main Islamist party, the Islamic Action Front, has vowed unspecified reprisals against American interests if the US forces begin bombing Iraq.

Arab leaders appear to be trying to make sure that reaction is not aimed at them.

That is the popular explanation for a joint statement last week in which all the Arab states except for Kuwait stated they would not offer the United States any assistance in fighting a war in Iraq — even though Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and Dubai have already allowed US troops in their countries.

That contradictory stance has brought criticism from the Arab press. Arab leaders have ”become incapable of doing anything other than colluding with the impending American aggression — or at best keeping quiet about it and issuing statement of rejection warning about its dangers to the region,” lamented the pan-Arab daily Al-Quds al-Arabi in an editorial this week.

Jordan’s late King Hussein refused to support the United States during the 1991 Gulf War and paid a steep price in cuts to its aid from Washington.

King Abdullah, who received $450 million in American economic and military aid last year and has been promised an increase of up to $150 million this year, has decided not to repeat his father’s experience.

”The King wanted to be part of the American campaign, even though this position is contrary to that of the Jordanian people,” said Labib Kamhawi, a political analyst and businessman in Amman.

Jordan’s military has begun training and serving alongside American troops. In October, King Abdullah allowed 1,000 US soldiers to train in the Jordanian desert with other troops from the region.

Jordanian special forces guarded the airfield outside the northern Afghan city Mazar-e-Sharif where the US 10th Mountain Division was based.

The trouble with the Jordan government’s current attempts to keep the presence of US troops a secret is that the rumors are impossible to control.

”Everyone knows about the US troops, even though the government denies it,” said Taher Masri, who was Jordan’s prime minister in 1991. ”As a result people assume their leaders are deceiving them, and start to assume the worst — that we have American combat troops and that the invasion will begin from here.”

Globe correspondent Bryan Bender contributed to this report from Washington.

This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 2/25/2003.

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

But the families of other rebel captives warn not to expect such an exchange any time soon.

Lucrecia Torres knows all too well that it may be months, or even years, before the three Americans whose plane went down in rebel territory are freed. Her own son has been held by the same rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, for almost six years.

Torres’ son, Wargner Tapias, was captured by the rebels in May 1997 while serving as a lieutenant in the Colombian Army.

“Be patient,” read the last letter Torres received from her son, 10 days before last Christmas. Torres says she learned to wait a long time ago.

Tapias is one of Colombia’s “exchangeables,” the name given to a group of 45 soldiers and police officers and two dozen kidnapped politicians the FARC wants to exchange for their imprisoned comrades.

The group now includes the three Americans, who give the rebels new leverage, analysts say. U.S. defense officials say the captured Americans are contractors for the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in South America and the Caribbean.

“For them, these gringos just fell out of the heavens,” said political analyst Leon Valencia.

The three Americans were taken after their U.S. government plane went down in rebel territory on Feb. 13. A fourth American and a Colombian were shot and killed near the crash site.

The FARC posted a statement on its Web site Monday saying “the three gringo prisoners of war in the custody of our organization will be liberated along with other Colombian prisoners of war once an exchange materializes in a large demilitarized zone.”

The previous president, Andres Pastrana, gave the FARC a Switzerland-sized safe haven during three years of peace talks. The talks fell apart and the government sent troops back into the area, and many felt that the government lost ground in the deal because the rebels used the area to consolidate their power.

President Alvaro Uribe has refused to consider granting the rebels another demilitarized zone.

The capture comes as the United States is stepping up its involvement in Colombia’s war against the rebels. The United States has given Colombia about $2 billion, mostly in military aid, since 2001. The 2003 budget recently passed by Congress adds another $500 million.

Bush authorized a new deployment of up to 150 troops to help in the search for the three Americans, U.S. Southern Command spokesman Art Merkel said Monday. He said the new troops would be “assisting the Colombians who are doing the search and rescue” and would not participate in combat missions.

The FARC considers Washington’s involvement in Colombia’s decades-old conflict an act of war, and said Monday that President Bush’s decision to send more troops was an “invasion.”

In Washington, U.S. officials again called for the release of the three. “The FARC is responsible for the American crew members’ safety, health and well-being,” State Department spokeswoman Jo-Anne Prokopowicz said Monday.

The analyst Valencia, a well-known author and himself a former rebel of the National Liberation Army, said the rebels will most likely kill the American prisoners if a rescue attempt is mounted.

“At that point, it’s combat, and they will fight to the death,” he said.

As long as the possibility for a prisoner exchange exists and there is no imminent danger of a rescue attempt, the FARC will likely keep the American captives healthy, Valencia said.

“Rationality, and their interest in keeping them alive, will overpower their anti-gringo sentiments,” Valencia said.

Earlier this year, Uribe softened his stance on a possible prisoner exchange, even naming an exploratory commission to start talking to the FARC. But that was before a string of rebel bomb attacks killed dozens of people.

“After the bombs, the government again hardened its stance on the humanitarian exchange,” said Marleny Orjuela, an activist for the families of the captured servicemen.

The latest standoff marks the first time in more than 20 years that U.S. government employees have been killed or captured in the conflict, which pits the FARC and a smaller rebel army against the government and a handful of outlawed right-wing paramilitary groups.

John Seebeth, 55, speaks courtesy of a hole in his throat, a hole left by a Viet Cong bullet on Aug. 21, 1969. But it wasn’t until years later that Seebeth’s consciousness was raised and his anti-war beliefs emerged.

Seebeth will share his views Monday at 7 p.m. at Issaquah library’s main branch, in a speech sponsored by the Eastside Suburban Peace Network.

In the 1980s, Seebeth became concerned about global warming.

He has devoted his life to environmental concerns and is an outspoken advocate for alternatives to gas-powered vehicles.

Dirty war

His war worries center on substances the United States began to introduce in the 1991 Gulf War.

One of his key concerns is depleted uranium.

The United States uses depleted uranium in bombs and artillery shells because it is heavier than other metals and more easily pierces armor.

Statistics show that even though only 148 died among the nearly 700,000 who fought, veterans have since reported problems related to exposure to depleted uranium.

The uranium loses half of its impact in 4.2 billion or 4.5 billion years, depending on the source.

To date, the government acknowledges 183,000, or about one in three veterans, have received disability status for one or more Gulf War-related conditions, a Veterans Administration official said.

“Now we’re going over there with these same weapons,” Seebeth said. “I love my country. If we were attacked, I’d serve. But this is not an honorable fight.”

Seebeth sees his country exchanging blood for oil, oil needed for the U.S. fleet of autos and SUVs.

Such fossil fuel boosts the global-warming phenomenon, ultimately raising water temperatures, disturbing the climate and irrevocably altering sea-related habitats — included human.

Ups and downs

Seebeth wears his emotions on his sleeve. Two subjects, kids and men he served with in Vietnam, can dampen an eye.

Born and raised in Philadelphia, Seebeth strived to escape a lower-middle-class environment by barely surviving high school and joining the Army.

His goal was to become a police officer.

In the Army, he became a medic.

“Now I was something,” Seebeth said. “We picked up the wounded out in the fields — civilians, U.S. soldiers, Vietnamese soldiers.”

Among all airborne groups, medics suffered the worst casualties, a third injured or dead. Seebeth’s helicopter, adorned with the red cross sign, carried no weapons. Sometimes, it was asked to land in heavy fire without escort.

That’s what happened Aug. 21, 1969, 25 or so miles south of Seebeth’s base at Danang.

“They had a casualty,” Seebeth said. “He was critical. If we didn’t come in and get him, his chances of surviving were small. The captain asked us what we wanted to do. No one said anything.”

They went in. It was the Hiep Duc valley.

“My left knee was shaking uncontrollably,” Seebeth said.

A bullet hit Seebeth’s armored jacket, at the top, near the neck.

The bullet splintered, and a big chunk entered his neck. When he was flown out, medics had to bring him back to life.

Seebeth received the Purple Heart for that and he and his unit won the Distinguished Flying Cross for the three days of intense activity in Hiep Duc.

The aftermath

Seebeth was mute for 17 months. He was outfitted with a Montgomery T-tube, allowing him to speak by pressing through a hole in his throat. That’s how he talks today.

Vietnam nearly ruined him. Racked by survivor’s guilt, he wound up drinking a lot and getting into two auto accidents.

Finally, a doctor talked him into returning to school.

Seebeth eventually corralled a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice from Indiana University and logged a year toward a master’s in social work at Ohio State University.

More importantly, he came to grips with Vietnam, concluding that his earlier zest for the mission was misplaced. He reached that point in part by doing a lot of reading.

“I didn’t read a book until my second year in college,” Seebeth said. Now he reads everything he can find on war and armaments and chemical agents and the environment.

He and his wife, Linda, keep an active bookcase in their home near the Issaquah Highlands.

The past is always there

Seebeth’s views remain affected by soldiers he saw die in Vietnam.

“I still carry them,” Seebeth said of the images in his mind. “This isn’t a responsibility I carry lightly. I shared a very special moment, eye to eye. I carry that passion, lest they die in vain.

“The responsibility is just awesome.”

Pictures of dying Vietnamese children remain as vivid.

Seebeth can weave stories that make stomachs turn and hairs bristle.

Which may be why he also likes to point out that, of Iraq’s 26 million people, half are children.

Greg Heberlein can be reached at greg.heberlein@kingcountyjournal.com or 425-453-4228.

Coordinated by the Win Without War Coalition, an umbrella protest group, the action aimed to direct at least one telephone call and fax to every U.S. senator every minute throughout the day. Organizers said they were far exceeding that goal.

The White House switchboard was also flooded and most callers heard a message that “all circuits are busy.”

Tom Andrews, a former Democratic representative from Maine who is running the organization, said more than 500,000 people had signed up on the Internet to take part and a half a million more were also expected to participate without registering on the group’s Web site (Moveon.org).

“We have hundreds of thousands of calls and faxes that we know are going in. It’s a first-of-its-kind protest and a tremendous success already,” he said. “People are making their voices heard loud and clear — don’t invade and don’t occupy Iraq.”

The Web site had a running total of what it said was the number of calls placed. As of 5 p.m. EST the number was almost 400,000. The Web site was flashing the names of individual protesters above a map of the United States with quotes from e-mails sent to the headquarters and to lawmakers. Each comment included the name and hometown of the protester.

Some protesters themselves had difficulties getting through to their representatives. Molly Lanzarotta from Boston said she had to dial several times to get through to an answering service in the office of Democratic Sen. John Kerry, a leading presidential candidate for 2004.

Others tried for long periods but eventually gave up. Brian Fry tried to call from Cleveland but kept getting the message, “all circuits are busy.” He said he would call his senators’ local Ohio offices instead and try to get through to Washington again later on or the next day.

SET TIMES TO CALL

Activists were given set times to call. Chicago marketing executive Mary Rickard was supposed to call at 3:14 p.m, 3:19 p.m. and 3:24 p.m. The faxes from people who signed onto the Web site were also programmed to go out at set times.

Telephone calls placed from Reuters to various senators received busy signals at all but two offices. At Florida Democrat Bob Graham’s office, a spokeswoman said they had received 400 calls in the first three hours of the day, well above the norm. Other senators also reported receiving many hundreds of calls, the small fraction that got through.

Andrews said the Internet had emerged as a key tool for the anti-war movement in organizing protests and instantly reaching tens of thousands of activists.

“It allows us to be in touch instantly with activists all around the country and the world. It’s a tremendous democratic tool,” he said.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions more in cities around the world have taken to the streets in a series of demonstrations over the past few weeks.

However, the latest polls show a substantial but not overwhelming majority of American voters support President Bush on Iraq. Surveys suggest that around 35 to 40 percent of the electorate opposes the war.

A Time/CNN poll conducted on Feb. 19-20 found 54 percent said the United States should use military action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The number was down 5 points from two weeks before and at its lowest level since last November. Thirty-eight percent said they were opposed.

Pollster Jennifer Laszlo, a Democrat who has recently conducted four focus groups, said support for the war was soft and opponents were far more intense in their views than many supporters.

“Republicans think this is America’s war but Democrats more and more see it as Bush’s war and they are getting more energized and more angry,” Laszlo said.