Today, September 17, 2008, is Constitution Day in the United States. It is the day when we celebrate and remember our founders signing the U.S. Constitution in 1787!

Today, we can be proud that our Constitution was the first written and codified constitution in history. It is a contract between the American people and the U.S. government.

Today is also a time when we can meditate on the many struggles facing our country. As a nation, we find ourselves in two wars, our economy is in a downward spiral, and U.S. citizens and residents face unbridled assaults on our basic civil liberties, including the right to privacy and due process of law, voting rights, and the right to be free from torture.

I ask you to take a moment to reflect on the challenges that our forebears overcame to provide us with a viable democracy that allows us to amend the Constitution and improve the quality of life for future generations.

Even as we consider this year's election, arguably the most important election of our generation, let us remember the true meaning and legacy of our democracy. With our Constitution and its subsequent amendments, let us remember that we, as a people, have overcome slavery, although we must still eliminate its evil legacy; that we have legislated the equality of women, but we still have a long, long way to go; and that we must restore civil liberties for everyone!

Many years ago, in another time of great turmoil and doubt about the strength of our democracy, during the struggle for civil rights for African Americans, women's rights, and an end to the Vietnam War, I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. For me, like you and millions of other Americans, the Constitution was not an abstract concept, but the promise, indeed the contract, that binds us as a free people with the guarantee that all men and women are created equal.

Although saddened by the loss of civil liberties and the current misadventures of our nation, we must not surrender and we must keep faith that we, as a people, will one day restore civil liberties and the rule of law. If we recommit ourselves to strengthen our nation, one day, once again, we will see the United States as a land of true democracy and equality, with justice for all.

Today, I ask you to recommit yourself as a defender of our Constitution and our democracy by joining UUSC and its work in defense of civil liberties and human rights! Today is worth remembering.

www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

As a former combat medic who spent 18 months in Vietnam and nearly 7 years

as a therapist and acting team leader in Providence, R.I., with the VA's Readjustment Counseling Program (or Vet Centers), the Washington Post's May 16, 2008, story "Official Urged Fewer Diagnoses of PTSD" sounded familiar.

Watching another generation of soldiers and veterans face a repeat of history with the Iraq war, I am outraged and feeling a sense of déjà vu. Unfortunately, this war is costing veterans the ability to truly "come home."

In 1979, the year the American Psychological Association made post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) the official diagnosis for victims of war trauma, Congress finally authorized the comprehensive Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act, which created Vet Centers, and I was hired by the VA. Throughout my VA service, I encountered attitudes that ran from indifference to open hostility towards veterans with PTSD. Other VA officials said virtually the same type of things as Norma Perez — psychologist and PTSD program team leader at the Department of Veterans Affairs' Olin E. Teague Veterans Center in Temple, Tex. — is quoted as saying in the Washington Post: "Don't tell vets they have PTSD because they'll want compensation" and words to that effect.

From the very beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I was one of many who cautioned, warned, and implored government officials at the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA), and Congress to increase the VA system's capacity for a substantial influx of returning soldiers with PTSD. In 2003 -2004, I attended DOD and VA briefings to voice concerns over a lack of resources and preparedness. Sadly, those warnings were ignored.

The problem is bigger than Perez or "repudiation [of PTSD as an issue] at the highest levels of DVA." Until government officials and the American people understand and accept that veterans' health care is a cost of war, their refusal to take PTSD seriously will amount to déjà vu - all over again.

For the last several months, I have met with, talked to, and coordinated with a remarkable group of active-duty soldiers who have formed an organization called Appeal for Redress.

These young men and women are the kind of people much like our sons, daughters, family, friends, and neighbors. Patriots all, most have served one or more "tours of duty" in Iraq, Afghanistan, or in both wars. In the case of "older" veterans from, say, the Vietnam War (like UUSC President Charlie Clements and me), these young soldiers are like our younger brothers and sisters.

The people who make up Appeal for Redress are not only military patriots but they are also "civic" patriots and defenders of democracy. Beyond their decorations for bravery on the battlefield, they are now exercising their right to freedom of speech at home in the United States. Sadly, some are being attacked and threatened with reprimand by their supervisors and officers. A recent episode of 60 Minutes addressed some of the problems.

Their first press conference was held at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Norfolk , Va. Two active-duty men, one African American and one white, Army Sgt. Liam Madden and Petty Officer Jonathon Hutto, started a petition drive to simply say: "We are patriotic Americans and having served our nation, in war and in peace, we believe staying in Iraq will not work,” as well as, it's “time for U.S. troops to come home.” They said, "It's not about speaking out against the military or speaking out against the war. It's just, we're here four years down the line and there's not an end to it."

More than 1,000 active-duty soldiers, sailors, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard personnel have signed a petition that was given to members of Congress. They say they’re permitted to express their opinions under a number of military rules, which the group lists. Among them is the 1995 Military Whistleblower Act. Although it prohibits them from speaking against the commander in chief or any of their superior officers, it does allow members of the armed forces to speak on their own behalf and “to make a protected communication to . . . Congress.”

According to President Bush, these brave service personnel are "bringing democracy" to Iraq. However, when it comes to these same brave service personnel exercising their First Amendment rights under freedom of speech, some are being retaliated against. As a result of their lawful right to dissent, some have lost their security clearances, others have been threatened, intimidated, or have been told their chances for career advancement have been put in jeopardy. Because they are all volunteers, they run the risk of losing or diminishing their chosen career paths.

What could be more hypocritical than questioning the patriotism of the very soldiers who are fighting, dying, killing, and being killed for the so-called democracy they are "bringing to the Iraqi people"? In our view, this is an important question of patriotism and freedom of speech. UUSC believes the answer is, "the rights of everyone adversely impacted by the Global War on Terror must be preserved and defended."

In what can only be described as a stunning victory for defenders of free speech and military opponents to the war in Iraq, yesterday, a military judge declared a mistrial in the court martial of U.S. Army First Lt. Ehren Watada.

By any standards, Lt. Ehren Watada was called an exemplary soldier. But then he decided to face court martial rather than join a war he called "illegal."

As a matter of conscience, Lt. Watada refused deployment to Iraq and, because of his strong moral beliefs, he risked his military career and the possibility of years in prison. Truly a patriot, Lt. Watada was deeply torn between "loyalty to the military and his soldiers" versus his belief in truth and honor. In the end, he chose to speak truth-to-power and decided to "not send his soldiers to their deaths in a war that he believed was illegal."

The military brought the full weight of its power against this proud soldier and lost! Clearly, Judge John Head's ruling the case a mistrial is a major blow. Now, the prosecution of Lt. Watada is in free-fall.

Because Lt. Watada's defense team opposed the mistrial and because it was endorsed by the prosecution, the door is now open to Lt. Watada for a double-jeopardy defense. Double jeopardy, which forbids a person from being tried twice for the same crime, does not apply only after a verdict is rendered, but can apply after a jury is empaneled and witnesses have been called.

Double jeopardy protection is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and it certainly applies to citizens. It remains to be seen whether or not the military thinks soldiers should be covered by the Constitution.

 

"Ask about democracy?"
"This is our democracy!"

"Am I right or wrong?
"You're right!"

"Are we going strong?"
"We're strong!"

"Sound off?"
"One, two!"

"Sound off?"
"three, four!"

"Bring it on home?"
"One two, three, four - One, two, three, four!"

So went the chant and refrain of more than 100,000 (some estimated as many as 400,000) people of conscience who journeyed to our nation's capital for this weekend's massive march on Washington. We gathered on the National Mall, between the front of the Capitol building and the Washington Monument, to demand peace, justice, and an end to the war in Iraq.

In what can only be described as democracy in action, the National Mall was awash in a sea of humanity: black, white, and brown people from around the nation and world. There were people wearing tie-dye and pin stripes! I even saw a smattering of signs declaring Republicans for Withdrawal from Iraq!

A distinguished group of speakers included active duty military (who spoke truth to power), families of soldiers killed in Iraq, clergy, students, human rights activists, and members of Congress. Robert Watada, the father of Lt. Ehren Watada (currently on trial for refusing to fight in the Iraq War) spoke with passion and pride for his son's courageous "refusal to serve in and illegal and immoral war."

After listening to a host of speakers, we marched and sang from the front of the Capitol, past federal agencies and congressional offices, past the U.S. Supreme Court and Library of Congress, the Botanic Gardens and back to the National Mall. Beautiful black, white, and brown children carried signs calling for a shutdown of Guantanamo Bay prison, and Palestinians and Jews marched together for peace in the Middle East.

Not since opposition to the war in Vietnam have so many active duty soldiers, sailors, and veterans voiced their opposition to war. Declaring themselves patriots, these active duty soldiers and sailors spoke for their buddies who could not speak because they're either in Iraq, wounded, or dead.

These soldiers spoke, knowing they were putting their military careers on the line, but for them, it is a matter of principle. Although, military regulations allow active-duty service members to speak their minds -- short of disrespect for the commanders or the president -- some have claimed retaliation from their superiors.

Beyond the newly Democratic Congress, a new day is on the rise. The American people have a new sense of optimism.

Coming from the frigid Northeast, even the weather was on our side -- the temperature in D.C., was a mild 53 degrees. Along with the warm sun and blue skies, the optimism of the people made it feel like early spring.

Clearly, this is a new day and democracy is on the move.

 

Without acknowledging the universal truth -- that is that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have failed -- President Bush, in April 2006, commissioned the Iraq Study Group (ISG) to examine war policies and make recommendations.

The bipartisan panel, cochaired by James Baker, former secretary of state to former president George Herbert Walker Bush and former congressman Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), is a blue-ribbon collection of Washington insiders. Not one single member of the ISG opposed the war in Iraq.

Just a few days before the ISG issued their much-anticipated report, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq exceeded the length of time it took to win World War II. On the day the ISG presented its 142-page report to President Bush, his cabinet, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the American people, 70 Iraqis were killed along with 10 American soldiers.

On the very same day, the U.S. Senate, on a 95-2 vote, confirmed former CIA Director Robert Gates as secretary of defense, replacing the disgraced Donald Rumsfeld.

The ISG report, titled "The Way Forward," is nothing less than a total repudiation of the Bush administration’s military and diplomatic approach to Iraq and the whole region. It listed 79 recommendations that can only be thought of as a U-turn away from the Bush administration’s “stay the course” policy.

President Bush told members of the ISG, “We will read this report and take these recommendations seriously.” The report gives a very tough assessment of the situation in Iraq and it brings some very interesting proposals. While the president said he would give the report serious consideration, he said he did not intend to accept all 79 recommendations. “Congress isn’t going to accept every recommendation in the report,” Mr. Bush said, “and neither will the administration.”

In a tone that almost scolded the administration, the first page of the report asserted “our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people.” Key recommendations include withdrawing U.S. troops not specifically dedicated to the training and support mission in Iraq by the first quarter of 2008, engage in U.S. talks with Iran and Syria, and deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability.

Sen. Russ Feingold, one of the few U.S. senators who voted against the war, called the ISG report “a classic Washington compromise.” Feingold, as many others observes, believes the 2006 election was a vote to get the U.S. out of Iraq. Others have said, in effect, the ISG report keeps U.S. troops there indefinitely.

In calling the war in Iraq “grave and deteriorating,” the ISG asks the American people to support the report and accept its recommendations, while admitting doing so is “a tough sell.” In effect, the report seems to ask the American people to give Iraq and the administration “one last chance” to get it right.

Gone are the days when President Bush and war planners believe they can “bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East.” Today, the Bush administration defines victory as “Iraq’s ability to defend itself.”

There was that one moment when I thought I heard President Bush call it “Vietnamization” but I am sure he meant "Iraqification."

 

In 1993, a young woman had a dream of helping other women who, like her, were victimized by war. A mere 14 years later, her dream has become reality and recently, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation has honored her as a great humanitarian.

Vivid memories of growing up in Iraq and -- after coming to the United States -- images of women who had been raped in Bosnia and Croatia guided her to make a difference in the lives of women living in war zones. With love and support from her courageous family and friends, Zainab Salbi began to live her dream. She envisioned a world where women would become empowered, where they could aquire the necessary skills and resources to move from "crisis and poverty to stability and self-sufficiency to in turn promote viable civil societies."

Fueled by her vision and passion, the dream was shared and Women for Women International was born. When Women for Women needed a place to grow, Zainab walked into All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church in Washington, D.C., and found a temporary home. When looking for resources, Zainab called UUSC, spoke with our colleague Jackie Ladd who, along with others, provided Women for Women with one of their first and most significant grants. As they say, "the rest is history."

UUSC is proud of the work that Women for Women International has accomplished and we see them as a model for the kind of program partnership that is the hallmark of UUSC's strategic agenda.

Recently, Women for Women honored UUSC by sending three of their most distinguished country directors to visit UUSC's offices. President Charlie Clements and the entire UUSC staff warmly welcomed our friends from Rwanda, Sudan, and Kosovo, and we took a moment to celebrate their legacy of success.

At the Conrad Hilton Award's ceremony in New York City, Women for Women went out of their way to thank and recognize UUSC's early and sustained support of their work. Eric Kreilick and I had the good fortune to represent UUSC and to spend time with Vaclav Havel, Liv Ullmann, and other notable humanitarians.

Currently, Women for Women's Iraq project is a UUSC Civil Liberties Program partner.