MLTF steering committee member James M. Branum appeared this week on the Code Pink Radio show (which airs on several stations around the country, as well as in podcast form).
The program can be heard by clicking here.
What follows is a machine-generated transcript of the interview with James from this episode:
Marcy Winograd 31:40
Welcome back to Code Pink Radio. I’m Marcy Winograd. It is our great pleasure and honor to have with us today. James Brannon, who is a member of the military law task force of the National Lawyers Guild, and who has spent decades representing members of the military who are gi resistors, who are seeking, sometimes seeking a way out, or seeking a way out of being deployed to a war zone. James, welcome to Code Pink Radio
James M. Branum 32:25
Oh, it is great to be here. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 32:27
In terms of Gi resistance, today, we see the Trump administration resuming the Monroe Doctrine, threatening military aggression all over Latin America, not just against Venezuela, but particularly Venezuela, as we see, what 15,000 troops, US troops stationed near Venezuela Trump has implanted CIA agents there moved in a US warship. What’s your sense of the situation in terms of the military resistance to this aggression, it’s
James M. Branum 33:04
it’s challenging, and so it plays out in different ways. For some people, the choice is made. I just need to get out of this situation. I need to not violate my conscience. That’s the most important thing. And so for someone like that, they may do take actions very quietly, to extricate themselves from the situation or to avoid a deployment that they see that violates their conscience. Other people may choose to speak publicly, but I will admit the risk of speaking publicly are much, much higher than they have been in recent years, and so I think that’s why we’re not seeing headlines of service members resisting. But nevertheless, resistance is happening.
Speaker 1 33:41
Let’s say I am somebody who has enlisted in the military but not yet deployed to the waters of Venezuela I call you and I say, James, what can I do? I want to get out of this. What would you say? So?
James M. Branum 33:57
So the first thing I of course, do is I give a standard disclaimer that I can’t tell someone to break the law. I can only tell, tell folks the consequences, moral, legal and ethical consequences, different courses of action. So I think that’s really important for anyone to know, is that I the approach I take is non directive. So we begin from that place, from there, then we would explore their options. And one of the things that we would want to explore, of course, is, are there legal grounds that a service member might have to avoid the deployment, and are there ways that they can avoid the showdown? Is how I’m calling it. In other words, are there ways to persuade a commander that it’s really not in anybody’s interest to send this particular service member on this particular deployment? And I’ve had some success using that approach of light. Sometimes that’s not possible. And so sometimes it’s not you can’t talk your commander out of this. Sometimes the the orders are going to stand. And so then the question is, what are there other grounds that could be used legally to avoid avoid the deployment that could include other health issues? Or is there a family hardship? Are there other issues along those lines? And then, of course, once we work through those issues, often the person may say, I don’t think I’m qualified, I’m eligible to be discharged or avoid the deployment on those grounds, but I believe this these orders are immoral or illegal. And so then we really are stuck with two choices. One, of course, is going through the process of applying to be recognized as a conscientious objector. This is a long, grueling process, I would say, on average, it’s six months to a year at least. There’s a lot of things that can happen along the way, but it is possible to be discharged as a conscientious objector, which is to show that after you enlisted, you had a change of heart, and because of that, you’re now sincerely opposed to all wars. So that’s one one path, another path, of course, is simply say, refusing to obey orders that are that one believes are illegal. The problem with this is, is that military law is set up in such a way that is very difficult to raise this defense and it’s very risky to do so. The problem is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is the overarching law that governs the military. There’s an interpretive document for that, called the manual for courts martial, and in that, it explains the defense of illegal orders, and it says that if a service member is given an order that they believe is illegal, they the courts will operate from the standpoint that the order is presumed to be legal, which means the service member to successfully avoid prosecution. They the burden of proof is on them to prove the order is illegal, also the only person who can make a definitive ruling on the illegality of an order is a military judge in a court martial. That’s a really important issue, because most of the time when a service member breaks breaks the rules in some way or is alleged to have done so, these issues are dealt with not through a court martial, but through administrative processes, which means taking away rank, doing all these things, non judicial punishment, administrative separation, some. For some service members, they say, Okay, well, so be it. I’m ready to get out of this. But for many others, the problem is, is that doing this would jeopardize their the career that they’ve been building. It jeopardizes their retirement, it could disrupt their life in really profound ways in the future. And so that’s one of the real problems, is for service members to really sort through all the issues and to count the cost and to weigh what they’re able and willing to do and it that’s it’s a really, very challenging dynamic
Speaker 1 37:40
for those who are listening, who have children who might be drafted, what would you say to them about establishing conscientious objector status ahead of time? You know, preparing for that
James M. Branum 37:53
absolutely well. I will share what I do with my for my son. My son is 19 years old, a college freshman, and throughout his teen years, when our family was involved in peace activism, when we went to protest, we did things like this. I took pictures of him doing these things. When he did school assignments that reflected that where conscience came was an issue, or he talked about peace and war issues, we saved those school assignments and so this kind of documentation, long before the war happens, long before a draft is called, is really important. So one of these I encourage any parent to do, is to document this stuff. To just to say, to take pictures when you go, go, go to protest, do things like this, but anything that also shows your family’s values and especially with your child, what they themselves are grappling with. There’s other things you can do if you’re part of a faith tradition, certainly documenting that through your faith tradition is important. A lot of churches do maintain registers of conscientious objectors. But if you’re not part of such a faith tradition, would encourage you to check out the center for conscience on war. Their website, I believe, is center on conscience.org and they actually have a conscientious objector registry that anyone can fill out a form and can have documented with through a third party where you stand about war and so doing these things well in advance is important. The other thing that I would suggest for particularly for parents, teachers, other people with young people in their lives is to just simply have the conversations about these questions. In other words, we don’t want our young people to be facing these questions for the first time when they get that draft notice. It’s much better that they’ve been thinking about it for months or even years before that comes. So having those conversations now talking about, why do you believe what you believe, and especially with young people helping them to explain, to be able to explain why they believe what they believe, because that’s what they’re going to have to do through the conscientious, objective process. Now also, one of the throw out here is that this is in the draft context. It’s a little different than an active duty context. For the draft context, of course, you need to show that your. Beliefs in opposition to all wars began prior to the draft. In the active duty context, the difference is you must prove that your your beliefs crystallized in fixed form after you enlisted. If you say, I’ve always been a conscious rejector. I’ve never believed in war, then you’re disqualified, because they would say that you fraudulently enlisted. They put in they buried in the enlistment papers. They do ask you, are you a conscientious objector to war? Everyone, of course, to proceed to the next stage of the enlistment process. Checks, no. They don’t explain to people what conscience objecting objecting is. They don’t tell young people this. But nevertheless, because that’s there, that’s often used against anyone who says, I had beliefs previously, and so it’s really important to show that your beliefs became fixed in form after you enlisted.
Speaker 1 40:47
Thank you for that explanation. James Brannon is my guest on Code Pink radio here to talk about gi resistance. He’s an attorney who’s worked for decades with members of the military who are seeking to either not be deployed to a war zone or to establish their status as conscientious objectors and so forth. So James, what about this PSA public service announcement that six members of Congress broadcast saying you have a right to refuse to the military to refuse an illegal order. What was your response to that, and how do you think that might impact gi resistance?
James M. Branum 41:29
I thought it’s a powerful statement, and it was especially coming from military veterans, coming from people who have served in this way. I think was a very important, powerful statement. I will say, I have I would say, I wish they had given a tiny bit more nuance. I would be concerned with the service member just outright refused orders without understanding the complexity of disobeying illegal orders. And we talked about that a moment ago, about some of those complexities. But, you know, other than that, I thought it was powerful, powerful statement, and I think it is changing the conversation. One of the things that’s happened since that statement got released are the organizations that take calls from service members these questions, gi rights, hotline for the Center for conscience and war, Quaker House and others in the military law Task Force, the National Lawyers Guild, all of these groups have seen an increase in calls and people asking tough questions about the issue of illegal orders. And so really appreciative of these members of Congress making this statement, also for them being members of Congress making the statement,
Speaker 1 42:34
James, let’s go back to Vietnam for a minute. That was while ago. I grew up during the war on Vietnam, I don’t use the preposition in I’m a retired English teacher, and I think prepositions are undervalued in our society. No on end now, this was a war on Vietnam. I think in the end, over 3 million Vietnamese killed, 60,000 US soldiers, an estimated came back and body bags countless others suffered with post traumatic stress disorder and other other wounds, mental and physical wounds. You said, when you mentioned Vietnam, that the GI resistance looked a lot different during that time than during Iraq and Afghanistan. You said it was collective resistance in Vietnam. And I remember that movie, that incredible documentary, no sir, where you see US servicemen in Vietnam refusing to put on their uniforms in collective resistance, right, refusing orders to bomb North Vietnam in collective resistance. What’s your analysis of why we saw collective resistance at that point, and haven’t seen it to that level
James M. Branum 43:43
since, I think in the 1960s and 70s, there was more of a in the broader society. There was a larger, a bigger sense of collective liberation happening. You had the Women’s Liberation Movement, you had the black liberation movement, you had gay liberation. You had all these things happening and where people were raking up and saying, I have rights. I have to and I’m going to stand up for them. I’m going to reach out to others who are like me, and we’re going to organize together. And this was happening all over the place. But then we look at the night from the 819, 80s onward, our society radically changed, much more individualistic in nature, much less collective in nature. Those movements of collective liberation, they continued to struggle, obviously, but they did not have the kind of momentum that they had previously. And so we fast forward. And also, let’s also be honest, there were major setbacks. The AIDS epidemic and what it did to the gay liberation movement would be a prime example where that the struggle had to shift from civil rights to basic survival. So So many things happened. And so by the time we get to the time of the Iraq and Afghan war. Wars, the military changed how it did things. So previously, if someone went through boot camp, went through their training and they often would stay with the same group of people for a significant amount of time, this led for more opportunities for networking, more opportunities for camaraderie, ship to build, and that also meant more opportunities for collective resistance. Today, members the military are much more interchangeable. They get moved from place to place very rapidly, and I think that’s intentional and in part, to keep collective organizing from happening. Now, the flip side of that is we now have the internet that was not during the 1960s and 70s. You know, I’ve many veteran activists I’ve talked to you tell stories about sneaking onto base and distributing underground newspapers in the middle of the night and it being distributed person to person in the barracks, that’s not necessary anymore, because every service member, almost every service member, has a cell phone in their pocket, has the ability to communicate with the outside world, and so that has made it possible to have all these connections. I’ll give you one example right now of resistance is happening in the Air Force. There’s a significant number of members of the Air Force now seeking conscientious objector status. This is unusual for the Air Force. I will be upfront say I’ve had very few Air Force co cases until the last couple of years. What’s changed? Gaza members the Air Force are seeing that their missions, often involving weapons, transport things like that to the State of Israel. They are seeing their personal connection to atrocities, their personal connection to war crimes, and they do not want to participate. For many of them, as they question this particular order, it has led them to question other things, including the morality of war itself. And so to me, I’m seeing this surge of Air Force interest in conscientious objection. Again, the branch, again, a branch that often, traditionally has had less CEOs. Why now more? It’s because of the kind of orders they’re being given. To me, this is a kind of resistance. It does look different, but it is resistance.
Speaker 1 47:04
I’m wondering if people at the Pentagon are paying attention to that, that there are more people in the Air Force than ever before, refusing or not wanting to carry out these bombing missions or supply weapons. What do you think
James M. Branum 47:19
would have to be a factor. And we know from during the during the Vietnam War, Nixon increasingly had to shift his his military strategy based upon the fact he could not count on the troops to carry out the orders that they were being given. And so that’s one of the reasons why Nixon shifted much more towards an air war towards the end versus the ground war. And so one of the things I find very interesting is with resistance specifically happening in the Air Force, that could change military strategy. It could change how decisions being made, if there’s serious concerns that whether the whether the troops will carry out the orders. And so we really don’t know. I mean, these are all we’re speaking hypotheticals right now, but I do think it poses some interesting possibilities that could actually affect how wars are carried out. Again, military, the military depends on human beings to do its work, and we, while we still, while we have there’s until we have AI robots and whatnot that are fighting or wars, you still need human beings. Human beings have hearts and conscience, and that’s what the military, they would love to get rid of that defect in their system. They haven’t done that yet, and so that’s what gives us some hope.
Speaker 1 48:34
It is hopeful to know that there are more and more members of the US Air Force who don’t want to participate in the genocide in Gaza. This is the first time I’m hearing this. So thank you for shedding light and illuminating this. It’s so important, James, before you leave us, I want to ask you if there’s anything else that you want to say to members of the military, their families, people considering enlisting at this moment.
James M. Branum 49:02
Well, for anyone considering enlisting at this moment, I would strongly recommend talking to veterans, recent veterans, about their experiences that I would begin there, because what the recruiters tell you and what a recent veteran will tell you are very different things. Listen to those who actually know what they’re talking about, who have been there and who are not being paid to get get you sold on something. So that’s the first thing I would begin with, for those considering enlisting, for those who are in the military, who are asking tough questions right now, I’d strongly recommend reaching out to some of the organizations that can help you to sort through these things. That includes the GI rights hotline, their website, gi rights hotline.org, I’d also recommend the center on conscience and war, particularly for issues of conscience. They have a lot of good resources on their website, center on conscience.org. I’ll also mention that my organization, the National Law the military law Task Force, the National Lawyers Guild, we’re seeking to provide the. Legal support for this broader movement. And so we have a wealth of resources. We have a quarterly med journal that goes into dealing with these practical issues of military law, not from a purely abstract academic standpoint, but from very practical standpoint that’s movement centered. But we also do have help service members find attorneys sometimes, when they need them, and we have a lot of resources. And so our website is NLG, mltf.org, and we have a also a number you can call. So that’s the main thing I would say, is that you’re not alone, that there are people out there to support you, to help you. They’re not going to tell you what to do. That’s important. We that none of these organizations I told you about are going to tell you what to do, because that’s not their job. Their job is to empower service members to figure figure things out for themselves, to exercise their rights. And so know that you’re not alone, but also know that you’re not being unlike the military, the peace movement doesn’t tell people what to do rather we empower people absolutely.
Speaker 1 51:04
Oh. We so appreciate the work that you have done over the years, James and all of your sage advice during this interview. And we shout out to you, and we shout out to the anti war organizations like Veterans for Peace, Iraq, veterans against war about face, who have for years encouraged members of the military to be guided by their conscience. Before we close out Code Pink radio, I do want to thank you again and play a clip from Sir, no, sir, here we go.
Speaker 10 51:39
We’re not going to Vietnam. We’re refusing our orders, and in fact, we’re resigning from the military to come and get us.
Speaker 12 51:50
You must understand, I like being a Green Beret. I thought it was good. The problem I had was realizing that what I was doing was not good. I was doing it right, but I wasn’t doing right.
Speaker 13 52:09
During the Vietnam War, an anti war movement emerged that altered the course of history. This movement didn’t take place on college campuses, but in barracks and on ships. It flourished in army stockades, Navy brigs and the dingy towns that surrounded military bases, hundreds went to prison and 1000s into exile. And by 1971 it had, in the words of one colonel, infested the entire armed services. Mr. President, there’s a
Speaker 14 52:33
terrible demonstration going on outside. Oh, there’s always a demonstration going on outside. Pat Richard, this one is completely out of control. They’re storming the White House. Oh, in that case, I better call out the Third Marine. You can’t Richard, here’s the Third Marine.
Speaker 7 52:45
They had nothing to lose. It’s a really free place. You know what’s gonna happen. You know where you’re going, but you know what you’re doing. Within two days of hitting the stockade, I was facing the death sentence,
Speaker 15 52:57
forsaken. We Shall Overcome.
Speaker 13 52:59
This man didn’t do me nothing. He heard no my black people know, my families. Why should I shoot him?
Speaker 15 53:04
A new phenomenon has cropped up at several army bases these days, a so called underground gi press.
Speaker 11 53:10
There wasn’t close to 300 anti one newspapers. It was, will ever dare work GIS, American GIs in the world.
Speaker 16 53:18
At that point, it really became crystal clear to me that something changed here, and that something very, very important was happening.
Speaker 16 53:38
We truly believed what would stop that war was when the soldiers stopped fighting. It.
Speaker 1 53:47
A clip from the documentary, sir No sir, about gi resistance during the US war on Vietnam. Before that, James M Branum with the National Lawyers Guild and before that, empire on the rocks with my co host, med dia, Benjamin peace, med you Of.
