A couple of months ago, I wrote a blog about Blackwater, a private military company (PMC) that is operating in Iraq. I wrote it because PMCs like Blackwater are making millions upon millions of dollars in Iraq – yet are held to NONE of the same accountability standards that the U.S. Army is held to. For example, if Blackwater is involved in the shooting of say, 11 innocent Iraqi civilians, it's likely that nothing will happen. No one will be held accountable, no investigations will be conducted, and taxpayers’ dollars will continue to fund them. On the upside, the president of the United States will make statements like this one: “Obviously, to the extent innocent life was lost, you know, I’m saddened.” Well....

If the president’s remorse isn’t enough for you, then do something. Write your legislator. Actually, call them. Sign a petition. Get the PMCs out of Iraq. Or, if they are going to stay, let’s make them accountable for their actions.

There has been an incredible amount of energy here at GA around UUSC's Drumbeat for Darfur campaign and the work to end the Darfur genocide. But there is another issue that is very much on people's minds here in Portland, Ore., and that's the war in Iraq.

This afternoon, the UU Peace Fellowship presented Camilo Mejia with its Adin Ballou Peace Award, given annually to someone who has made a significant contribution to advancing the cause of peace in the world. After five months of service in Iraq, Mejia came to the conclusion that he could not and would not support the Iraq war. For letting his conscience be his guide, he served one year in military prison for refusing further duty in Iraq.

During his time in Iraq, one of Mejia's jobs was to "soften" Iraqi prisoners, many of whom he knew to be innocent civilians. He became disgusted with this abuse and could no longer stomach the things he was asked to do. His compassion grew, but at first he felt powerless to act.

"In the face of the abuse of the dignity of the Iraqi people, I remained paralyzed and kept my mouth shut," he said. "But a change was taking place inside of me. Not because of how the war was affecting me, but because of how the war was affecting the people of Iraq."

"We're doing the Iraqi people a disservice if we turn away from the horror," added Charlie Clements, UUSC's president.

Mejia was adamant that we have to stand up for what we believe in, and fiercely defended the right of our service men and women to do so. "It is not only our right to refuse to fight," he said, "it's our legal duty. It's our moral duty to humanity to refuse and resist."

Millions of Iraqi civilians have been displaced now. It's a humanitarian crisis that is growing daily, and who better to bear witness than someone like Mejia, who has been there. He is asking us to bear witness with him to two sides of the same of coin that is Iraq: by supporting the rights of the people in that nation, and supporting the rights of our troops who, like him, are trying to right what they have seen as a terrible wrong.

Blackwater, a Private Military Company (PMC), is the scariest thing you haven’t heard of. They bill themselves, on their website, as “the most comprehensive professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and stability operations company in the world.” And, apparently, the Bush administration agrees.

In a recent (and disturbing) new novel, Jeremy Scahill talks about Blackwater and its rise to power, its uncanny ability to win no-bid government contracts in places like Iraq and New Orleans, and its utter lack of accountability in its missions. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg -- Blackwater is emblematic of the rise in the private contracting of war and the hefty profits it reaps.

Maybe you heard about Blackwater briefly, when four of their men were killed in Fallujah, Iraq, their bodies dragged down the streets, burned, and then hung from bridges in town. These were the deaths that began a massive ‘counter insurgency’ in the Iraq war. But, these deaths don’t count towards the official tally of U.S. personnel killed in Iraq -- in many ways, they aren’t counted at all.

Herein lies the problem. Blackwater, as well as many other Private Military Companies, have an unknown number of people working as military contractors in Iraq -- but estimates are around 100,000. They function like U.S. military but are not held to the same rules of conduct. This is particularly distressing in light of tragedies like Abu Ghraib, a disgusting abuse of power in which PMCs were key players.

In the 2007 Defense Authorization Act, a small amount of checks were put on PMCs, an attempt by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham to start the ball rolling on holding these contractors remotely accountable for their actions. But, this legislation isn’t enough. Holding accountable PMCs is only one part of the equation -- the other is addressing the massive amount of profits that are a by-product of privatizing war, as well as relief efforts.

Profits reaped by Blackwater and other military contractors are in the billions of dollars. In post-Katrina New Orleans, individual PMCs were paid thousands of dollars a day to "maintain order." In the Iraq war, PMCs are estimated to account for forty cents of every dollar. That’s forty cents of every dollar going to people who are in no way accountable to laws of military conduct, not to mention the Geneva Conventions.

Oh, and if Blackwater scares you, just think about some of these other private military contractors. There is KBR, CACI, Raytheon, SCG International Risk, SOS Temps, Pathfinder Security Services, Top Cat Marine Security, STOP units, Triple Canopy, Titan Corporation, ManTech International, and Vinnell Corporation, to name a few.

The privatization of war and the profits it creates is a relatively new phenomenon. And Blackwater, unfortunately, isn’t alone. We hear about war profiteering to some extent. What we need to be hearing is that private war profiteers are making a killing -- literally and figuratively -- on the backs of Americans and Iraqis alike.

If it bothers you, tell your legislator. Tell them that you want PMCs to be traced, accounted for, and accountable. Tell them that you don’t want your money going to people who answer to no one.

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.

Innocent until proven guilty. It has a nice ring to it. But it’s a hollow ring for those at Guantanamo Bay. For five years, innocent until proven guilty has been a battle cry of human rights defenders against Guantanamo – and an ironic statement for those within its walls.

Last night, in protests around the world, people joined together in calling for the close of Guantanamo. UUSC staff members joined with Amnesty International to hold a vigil in front of Cambridge City Hall in Cambridge, Mass.

Today, more than 400 detainees, none of whom have been tried, are captives of Guantanamo. They are the lost victims of a war with unclear goals and even less clear means.

And, these aren’t ordinary prisoners. Unlike citizens on trial in this country, these prisoners are not innocent until proven guilty. Last year, Congress stripped the right of habeas corpus, or the ability to challenge the legality of detention in a court of law, from those detainees at Guantanamo. What that means is, essentially, those prisoners are guilty until proven innocent.

The legislation went one step further – it eliminated the right to habeas corpus for all non-citizens whom the executive branch declared to be “unlawful enemy combatants.” In the United States alone, that could be any one of the 11 million non-citizens who live on our shores.

Supporters of the bill claim that this is the price we pay to win the “War on Terror.” But at what cost? Stripped of their rights, charged with nothing, forced to exist for five years within the walls of Guantanamo . . . would our administration still be convinced of the merits of this price?

It’s only the price they are willing for others to pay.

The prisoners of Guantanamo have been languishing for over five years. They have missed the births of children and the deaths of loved ones. They have been stripped of their right to recourse, and treated as “The Enemy.” They are the price we are paying.

Some say that winning the “War on Terror” is worth any cost. The cost in this case is lost innocence.

Well, the worst-kept secret of the new year is officially out: George Bush is convinced that more troops and more money can pull a victory out of the fire in Iraq.

It isn't hard to understand. If there is one chance in 20 that this will work, then it is a simple choice for him. That 1 in 20 bet certainly looks a lot better than withdrawing in defeat. In any event, an escalation of the war will probably mean that the next president will be the one to evacuate the Green Zone.

At least some of the U.S. trainers working with the Iraqi army doubt that 20,000 new troops will make a difference where it most matters: In the ability of the Iraqi army to take over this war and stabilize their own country. While I don't agree with army trainers on everything, it is hard to argue with them on this one.

The Democratic leadership in Congress seems ready to fight Bush on this escalation, and some on the Republican side are interested enough in getting re-elected to join them. Bravo! The larger question is whether or not they are ready to push for a plan to end this war. The signals are less clear on that one.

Regardless of the haze in D.C., people around the country seem ready to speak more clearly. The Win Without War coalition is using new and old media to organize a campaign to answer the Bush plan with an immediate and resounding NO! The coalition is not just demanding that no more troops go to Iraq . . . it also insists on a plan for a safe, secure withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 2007.

If you agree, go to the website put together for the No More Troops! campaign and enter your zip code. You'll be shown a list of events happening Thursday in your area. If there isn't one happening near you, organize one! There are more events listed in my area each time I go to the site. I note proudly that many Unitarian Universalist and other progressive congregations are hosting events.

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.

One of the best things that happened in this important week was the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. But before we could even get the needles out of our dolls, President Bush nominated a replacement, Robert Gates.

As you might have expected, Bush has nominated someone cut from the same cloth as his predecessor. Gates has a long history in U.S. intelligence establishment, having served as an assistant to CIA Director William Casey during the entire illegal operation that came to be known as the Iran-Contra scandal.

Gates became known within the agency as someone able to manipulate intelligence findings to serve the policy goals of his political bosses. As such, he rose quickly within the system, becoming the minion entrusted by Casey with the preparation of nearly all of his speeches, briefings and testimony. Speaking on Democracy Now, ex-CIA analyst Melvin Goodman called Gates a "political windsock," always dutifully pointing in the direction of the strongest political winds at the CIA.

Ronald Reagan nominated Gates to head the CIA in 1987, but the public opposition was so strong that the administration had to withdraw the nomination. Gates did become CIA Director in 1991, but an unprededented 31 Senators voted against the nomination when it came to the Senate floor.

Now, as president of Texas A&M University (go Aggies!), Gates has served on the famous bipartisan commission reviewing the Bush policy in Iraq. Clearly, he comes to the Pentagon with instructions to carry out some of the course corrections recommended by that commission.

But is this the time for a political windsock at the Pentagon? The country desperately needs real intelligence leading to a new Iraq policy, rather than a Defense Secretary schooled in intelligence as political spin. Unfortunately, it looks as though the lame ducks will limp through the confirmation process and give Gates the big chair at the Pentagon before the year ends. If so, it won't take a lot to know which way the wind is blowing in Washington.