top
LGBTI/Queer
LGBTI/Queer
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Urgent Support Needed

by Stephen Funk Legal Defense Committee
Support Conscientious Objector and First Amendment rights
HI,
Here is an update on my case, I am doing fine and I thank you for any support you can provide or have provided already. Feel free to post any or all of this information online or in letters to your local papers. I have also been giving interviews when it is possible. If they think that because I am a pacifist that I will be giving up they are sorely mistaken. I am clearly being punished because I excercised my 1st Amendment rights, if that's the case I will excercise them until they are taken away.
Stephen Funk.

CO Stephen Funk charged with desertion, Help Needed

Dear friends,

Below is the latest information about Stephen Funk, the young man who applied for Conscientious Objector status in San Jose, California, on April 1 of this year. I was there when he turned himself in and had a chance to meet him.

He has been sent to New Orleans where he is being charged with desertion.

What I am sending is excerpts from an early appeal from Stephen's lawyer, and a subsequent letter asking for support from Stephen's family and friends.

I hope you can send something to help with his legal defense. Please, also forward this letter. And if anyone has contacts in New Orleans who can help form a local support group, please get in touch with the Stephen Funk Legal Defense Fund directly and help get it started.

Thanks,
Carolyn Scarr
May 26, 2003

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Marine Reservist and Conscientious Objector Stephen Funk, who declared his CO status publicly on April 1, is being charges with desertion under Art. 85 of the UCMJ. Funk was only UA for 47 days and told his command in advance that he would not be appearing for duty, would prepare his CO application, and turn himself in when completed. The Marines are nevertheless charging him with shirking important duty.

Stephen Funk is stationed at a New Orleans Marine Base with other Marine CO's. Those wishing to help in his legal defense with donations can send a check to the Stephen Funk Legal Defense Fund, 1230 Market Street, # 111, San Francisco, CA 94102.

Stephen Collier
415-771-9850
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stephen Funk Legal Defense Fund
1230 Market Street, Box 111, San Francisco, CA 94102

May, 2003

Dear Family and Friends:

We are writing to request your financial support for Stephen Funk, a courageous young man who stood up to the United States military and said: I will not participate in your war in Iraq, I am a Conscientious Objector to war.

As you may know by now, Stephen reported for duty with an application for discharge on April 1, publicly declaring his conscientious objection to war. On April 22, he was sent to the Fourth Force Service Support Base in New

Orleans, Louisiana--away from family, friends, legal team, and supporters. He was placed in a unit of nearly twenty Marine Corps Conscientious Objectors who are all waiting for discharge hearings or court martial proceedings.

On May 2, the Marine Corps filed Desertion charges against Stephen, claiming that he "shirked important duty." And on May 13 the Marine Corps initiated investigative hearings to determine the validity of Stephen's Conscientious Objector beliefs.

Stephen needs the assistance of a good civilian lawyer. He needs an attorney who is not beholden to the United States military. He needs to be represented by someone who knows military law and who will go toe to toe with military officials to defend Stephen's rights.

Stephen has hired Stephen Collier, a San Francisco attorney well versed in military law and Gay civil rights, to represent Stephen Funk during his court hearings. There will be legal costs associated with representation, which is why I am asking you to make a contribution of $100 or more to the Stephen Funk Legal Defense Fund.

Stephen Funk is a family member. He is a friend. He is a Conscientious Objector. He deserves an Honorable Discharge from the United States Marine Corps. Stephen Funk must not serve months or years in a military prison for his act of conscience.

Please make your contribution of $100 or more today to the Stephen Funk Legal Defense Fund, 1230 Market Street, Box 111, San Francisco, CA 94102. A contribution of any amount will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much!


Sincerely,

Gloria Pacis, Stephen's Mother
Caitlin Funk, Stephen's Sister
Steve Collier, Stephen's Attorney
Aimee Allison, Gulf War Objector 1991
Erik Larsen, AFSME Union Member
Aaron Baluyot, Businessman
Jennifer Touchton, Sunnyhills United Methodist Church
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Hedley
Why? He's a coward.
by he joined the Marine Reserve
Then decided he was a CO when called for duty.

Ummmm...

Nah. He knew what he was getting into.
by Sgt. Maj. Alford L. McMichael
HEADQUARTERS, U.S. MARINE CORPS - Fellow Marines, let me reemphasize a simple, but sometimes-overlooked truth: the characterization of your discharge will impact your opportunities for success in the future, and might affect your self-esteem and personal sense of pride. Occasionally, there are Marines who lose sight of this fact and then have trouble dealing with the consequences.

For example, in a recent letter to the editor of one of our professional journals, an individual wrote to express his concerns about having received an Other Than Honorable Discharge from the Marine Corps. Interestingly, he said that he felt bad about his separation because the Corps had been a major part of his life, and it had given him a great sense of honor and responsibility. His main point, however, was that he didn't understand why he couldn't get a second chance to correct his missteps. He knew that he had violated the trust and confidence placed in him as a Marine, and understood that the Marine Corps had to take legal action in his case. Still, the writer appeared to be genuinely dejected by his separation and its characterization. While I don't know the details of the incident, I was struck by the emotion in the letter. Its strong appeal for a second chance suggested that civilian life might not have been going well for this individual. His situation highlighted the fact that an Other Than Honorable Discharge has negative long-term consequences. It is important to remember that the characterization of your discharge will depend entirely on the nature of your service.

Most Marines perform their duties and conduct themselves in the manner in which they are expected, and will thereby rate a favorable characterization. However, these papers are not "rubber stamped." Our profession requires that our standards of behavior be higher than the norm. We insist on discipline, integrity, and courage because the nature of warfare requires that we obey orders, trust each other, and be able to set our fears aside in order to accomplish the mission. If you meet these standards and perform your duties as expected, then at the end of your days in uniform, you will receive a ringing endorsement that carries the full confidence of the United States Marine Corps -- an Honorable Discharge.

An Honorable Discharge is more than a piece of paper that you are given at the end of your enlistment. It is a document that shows that you have served your country faithfully and honestly. It is a reflection of your commitment to duty, and demonstrates that you have done your part to protect and advance our national interests. In short, an Honorable Discharge is, as our Commandant has stated, "both a sign of dedication to the prosperity of our nation and a measure of personal character." An Honorable Discharge can also be considered your ticket to success because it is an effective endorsement from the U.S. Marine Corps that tells prospective employers or college admissions committees that you are dependable and reliable. Since hard work and personal responsibility are familiar concepts to Marines, it also says that you can remain committed to a cause and see it through to its completion. Moreover, it correctly implies that by virtue of your military service, you are better equipped than your civilian counterparts to overcome adversity and find solutions under stressful conditions.

These distinctions are important because there are a growing number of employers who give hiring preferences to former servicemembers. They recognize, especially in the case of Marines, that your training has given you a sense of discipline, honor, and commitment that many of your civilian peers do not have. In the business world, managers see this as translating into greater efficiency and productivity. However, not everyone who served in the military has these attributes. Therefore, the "truth teller" that lets an employer know if you are going to "measure up" is the characterization of your discharge. An honorable characterization suggests that you have these attributes, and will therefore be an asset to any employer. An Honorable Discharge also affords you civil service preference in the federal government, as well as many state, and local governments. Municipal employers, such as the police and fire departments, often favor former military members not only because of the training that we receive, but also because those jobs require disciplined professionals who can think quickly on their feet. They want people who are trustworthy and reliable, and are able to work both independently and as part of a team.

For some, the greatest utility of an Honorable Discharge is that it entitles you to all the benefits the Veterans Administration (VA) offers. These include the educational packages known as the Montgomery G. I. Bill (MGIB) and the Marine Corps College Fund (MCCF). The MGIB provides up to $19,296 dollars, and the MCCF will grant up to $50,000 dollars to pay for your college. Other VA benefits include the VA home loan guarantee, which allows you to purchase a home with little or no down payment. This provides great assistance to first-time homebuyers and young Marines who may have limited savings. The privilege of receiving medical treatment at VA medical centers is another benefit. Treatment at these centers is guaranteed even if the injuries or illnesses occur after you leave active service. Although we can assign these benefits a dollar value, in terms of their positive effects on a member, we consider them priceless. By paying for your education, easing the burden of buying a home, and ensuring your access to medical care, they contribute greatly to helping you reach your full potential and realize the "American dream."

Other advantages that an Honorable Discharge guarantees include the privilege of retaining your eligibility to join the Reserve or National Guard. Joining the Marine Corps Reserve is a great way to continue serving our country and Corps. The Reserves allow you to pursue a civilian career while remaining strongly connected to our Corps. For non-U.S. citizens serving in the military, an Honorable Discharge helps to speed up the naturalization process, provided they meet other requirements. Incidentally, current law requires that the Marine Corps notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service to revoke the citizenship of naturalized citizens who receive an Other Than Honorable Discharge.

Finally, an Honorable Discharge allows you the distinction of being laid to rest at one of our nation's federal cemeteries. If you or your family desires, you will receive full military honors and the VA will fund the headstone or flag for the burial. This is our grateful nation's final "thank you" for your honest and faithful service.

In the end, you can stand with your head held high as living proof that, for 224 years, our Corps has been making Marines, winning battles, and returning responsible citizens to society.
by Ruth
I thank him for saying no to an immoral, illegal war. Could we please arrest Bush for desertion? He did not report for duty or turn himself in.
by His Dishonorable Will Be Appropriate
If only to pansy-out after the possibility of
actually being an active marine arose. Just
like all those cons who suddenly get religion
in prison, this dude suddenly ''objects'' to
having to serve. His Dishonourable Discharge
will be appropriate.
by repost
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

WAR IS A RACKET

Smedley Darlington Butler

Major General - United States Marine Corps [Retired]

Born West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881

Educated Haverford School

Married Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905

Awarded two congressional medals of honor, for capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914,

and for capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917

Distinguished service medal, 1919

Retired Oct. 1, 1931

On leave of absence to act as director of Department of Safety, Philadelphia, 1932

Lecturer - 1930's

Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932

Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940

For more information about Major General Smedley Butler, contact the United States Marine Corps.

Chapter One

WAR IS A RACKET

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."

Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.

It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit.

 

CHAPTER TWO

WHO MAKES THE PROFITS?

The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.

Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.

Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.

Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.

For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

International Nickel Company – and you can't have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.

American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.

Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.

And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public – even before a Senate investigatory body.

But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.

Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought – and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.

There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it – so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.

Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches – one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!

Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.

There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.

Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 – count them if you live long enough – was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.

Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them – a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers – all got theirs.

Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment – knapsacks and the things that go to fill them – crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them – and they will do it all over again the next time.

There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.

One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.

Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn't ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.

The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn't float! The seams opened up – and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.

It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.

The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.

Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee – with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator – to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.

Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses – that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.

There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.

Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.

 

CHAPTER THREE

WHO PAYS THE BILLS?

Who provides the profits – these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them – in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us – the people – got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par – and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.

But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.

If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.

Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.

In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.

There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn't stand it.

That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead – they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded – they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too – they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam – on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain – with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.

But don't forget – the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.

Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share – at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't.

Napoleon once said,

"All men are enamored of decorations...they positively hunger for them."

So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.

In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army.

So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side...it is His will that the Germans be killed.

And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies...to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.

Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."

Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.

All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill...and be killed.

But wait!

Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance – something the employer pays for in an enlightened state – and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.

Then, the most crowning insolence of all – he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.

We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back – when they came back from the war and couldn't find work – at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!

Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly – his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.

When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too – as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.

And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.

 

CHAPTER FOUR

HOW TO SMASH THIS RACKET!

WELL, it's a racket, all right.

A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –

yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

Why shouldn't they?

They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.

Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant – all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war – voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms – to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.

There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide – and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.

A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.

We must take the profit out of war.

We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.

We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.

 

CHAPTER FIVE

TO HELL WITH WAR!

I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.

Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.

Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?

Money.

An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:

 

"There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.

If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money...and Germany won't.

So..."

Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars."

Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.

And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.

Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?

The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.

The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.

There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.

The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.

Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.

But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.

If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munitions makers.

So...I say,

TO HELL WITH WAR!

by Funky Legal Defense at your servive
Funky Legal Defense Stephen Funk,

this is one of the most quoted works that the left turns to when it has nothing of substance to say, anyone who has done any research knows this is probably the most dubious writing in history
the mere fact that this quotation is being used brings suspicion to the motive, and attempts to tie it into free speech is at best reaching for the stars.
this quotation has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the desertion of Stephen Funk,

Stephen Funk, clearly made a choice(to run and hide) now he has to stand and answer for his actions or the lack there of. as Stephen was on active duty for some time before this war started. he was well aware of the consequence of his actions. now he has only to find out his fate.
by just wondering
>one of the most quoted works

>the mere fact that this quotation is being used


Why don't you address its content? This thread is not about the left or its motives. It's about whether Marines should fight and die to make capitalists rich. Why don't you address that?
by got this guy.
He signed a contract, with full knowledge of what he was getting in to.

And he tried to get out of it.

If he tried to buy a car, and then get out of the payments, you expect him to keep the car?
by we've started looting Iraq?
Peeling off building facades? Emptying their banks? Pumping out all their oil? Stealing everyhting that moves?

Wait - you mean we AREN'T doing that?

Damn - what sort of half-assed capitalist looters ARE we, anyway! Can't even rape and pillage properly!

(Hmmm. Can't even RAPE properly! How many stories have you seen about THAT sort of trouble in Iraq? NONE! Damnit, how are we going to maintain an image of being rapacious invaders if we don't even RAPE!)
by History Dates & Opinion
If Major General Smedley Darlington Butler did not die before December 7, 1941 if he would have a different view on war? Judging by his article he held a very common isolationist/non-involvement view of the world and probably at the time when this was written didn’t believe that we should have gone to war with Hitler and the Nazi’s.

As to Mr. Funk and reading his story, it’s hard for me to believe that he didn’t know what he was getting into when joining the Marines. From reading previous articles about his story, he acted as if the Marine Corp was a spin off of the CCC or Peace Corps and it’s hard to believe that anyone can be that naïve.

He may be a family member, a friend, and a Conscientious Objector, but this does not constitute an Honorable Discharge from the United States Marine Corps and Stephen Funk Legal Defense Committee needs to read the article by Sgt. Maj. Alford L. McMichael about the meaning of an Honorable Discharge. Stephen Funk is now learning the hard way that there are consequences to his actions and if he learned anything from the Marines maybe he should he act like a Marine and accept the consequences for his actions.
by Q
To defend the constitution. He has done a far better job of that than has the cowardly, treacherous, deserting, war criminal of a chickenhawk named Dubya.
by He bailed HARD when
called upon to keep his oath. This makes him virtuous in your eyes?

Oh, I've been called up. I'm gonna be a CO, 'cause I don't wanna go! Never mind I was an ACTIVE DUTY Marine, then I went to the RESERVES, and I VOLUNTEERED to be a Marine because there's no draft, I'm still gonna try to bail!

Oh, no! They're gonna court martial me! How UNFAIR! Waah! I need HELP! I didn't want to keep my word! Waah!

No sympathy for oathbreakers.
by Wimp
He just wanted the free education and now that it's time to pay up he wants to weasel out of it.
by Dave
'Conscientious' persons don't join the Marines. He's made his bed, now he can lie in it. If he's such a principled man, then fine - let him die for upholding those principles. Lord knows, many other Marines have.

First he was afraid to fight, now he's afraid of the ramifications. He's twice a coward and nothing else, and deserves to rot in jail.
by bilious bile
so much bilious bile on this indy site.

where is the compassion or even a sign of comprehension for the greater picture?

since California sank to the low forties (49th?) in education, post Prop 13, it's not a stretch that a naiive young man could be drawn in by the slick ads and promises of excitment coupled with college.

for many youth of color, the armed forces are the only way to get a college education. This is indentured servitude played up as an adventure to be all that you can be. So he wants ot be a CO...okay...why all the hateful barbs at this confused youth?

such cold, cold, bitter thoughts eminate from the safety of the virtual realm.
by Give me a break.
He went through Basic training, didn't know? He was active duty, and didn't know? He was int he Reserves, and didn't know? He learned Marine Corps history (and believe me, they DO teach it in boot camp) and didn't know what he was getting into?

Compassion?

Do you have compassion for someone who buys a car, KNOWING he has no intention of paying for it? Or do you see them as a theif?

He knew what he was getting into - he just figured he could duck the bill.
by Griffin
bilious bile is saying true things.

It is a sign of the times and part of a much world events. This communication, and coming to awareness are part of the right thing. GO INTERNET.

Speak up and out if that's what it takes to learn. Freedom of Speech forever!

Be compassionate. It is really one of our few lifesavers.

by gullibility is another
And so is abdicating the responsibility one takes on.

If this guy were looking for legal fees because he intentionally defaulted on a a contract - would you support him?

If he'd been arrested for conning someone out of their life savings, would you support him?

Compassion is one thing - but make sure the compassion is warranted. He knew what he was getting in to.

by So should "FUNK"
Mr. Funk, who does not deserve the tile of any military rank, freely chose to join the Marine Corps during a time when young men and woman are not being drafted. Because you get cold feet, while the rest of your family and friends are fighting a WAR is not sufficient reason to decide to become a "CO". Funk was adult enough to decide to join the military, therefore should complete his commitment, like the rest who have served now and before him.

As a Marine, I myself did not agree with every order I was given or information I received. Although I always remembered the oath I took, and in remembering that I knew I had to follow theorders I was given.

What would happen if are MAINLAND were to get attacked and a large portion of our military personel, knowing death might come, decided to declare "CO".

This website might just be in another language or not even exist.

GOD BLESS ALL OF THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED AND ARE SERVING, TO GIVE THOSE OF US THE FREEDOM WE HAVE.......
by Goddess
Who is this God, so often invoked to bless only our country? May all the world be blessed. May all people be blessed.
by Just ice
For petes sake he is a kid and he was when he joined. So Mr Funk changed his mind came to the realization that he could not kill. Maybe it is better that he did it before he was in the trenches with his buddies counting on him and he freezes. He did a favor to all the brave Marines who might have needed him. I grown and changed and so have all of you. Fear will change you. I don't blame any man for being afraid and not being able to handle the harsh realities of killing or being killed
by Howard (hotoole [at] cfl.rr.com)
When did this young man join the Marines? Was he a CO prior to signing the enlistment papers to volunteer for service in the USMC?

Did he know by entering the US military that his as everyone's main function will be to obey orders and fight and possibly kill an enemy.

The US military is NOT a democacy. There is no voteing. You do as you are told and you have agreed to this in writting and by taking the oath.

He and all others like him should think of the duties they volunteer and agree to do for whatever pay and benefits they accept.

You would have to explain to me what part he did not understand about joining the USMC>
by Stephen Funk Legal Defense Committee
Thank you for this article on an extremely brave and responsible young man. He is standing up for something urgent, the right not to be used as cannon fodder for corporate war and to refuse to kill others for the corrupt reasons of US leaders.

Adrienne Weller
by history buff
>You do as you are told and you have agreed to this in writting and by taking the oath.

That was Eichmann's excuse.
§^
by lesson learned
Don't give your word or sign your name to something unless you intend on carrying out what you promised.
by he figured it'd be a free ride
And didn't know the Marines function is to fight. LOL.

Wonder if he defaults on his credit cards? Car loan? Rent? Hey he probably doesn't want to have to pay those either, so he shouldn't, right?

by the answer is obvious
That abortion is legal, is not enough. It needs to be compulsory and, in most cases, retroactive.
by just wondering
So what are you saying here, that it a good thing that Eichmann didn't quit?
by Nice equivalence thing ya got there.
Polish it often?
Don't know about the others, but here's what I'm saying:

"Don't give your word or sign your name to something unless you intend on carrying out what you promised."

Anyone who makes a promise to me knowing full well what is expected of them and doesn't keep their word is of no use to me or anyone else. And if you don't know full well what is expected of you, then don't promise. It's that simple. I got no time for people who only do a half assed job.
by Judgement at Nuremberg
A soldier who obeys an immoral order = any other soldier who obeys an immoral order.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$190.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network