Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD)

Articles Archive
Hits: 3793

From Draft NOtices, March-April 2001


- Rick Jahnkow


"[W]here military power is introduced, Military Maxims are propagated and adopted, which are inconsistent with and must soon eradicate every idea of Civil Government." — Samuel Adams, 1768

When the U.S. submarine Greeneville executed a rapid ascent on February 9 and speared the hull of the Ehime Maru, killing nine people who were on the Japanese trawler, it revealed much more than a tragic failure in seamanship and Navy equipment. For those who care to open their eyes, it also provided an example of the degree to which the U.S. has thrown its own national soul overboard and sunk into the depths of militarism.

Much of the attention and debate surrounding the Ehime Maru incident will focus on whether some piece of sonar equipment on the Greeneville malfunctioned or was misread by a sailor, or whether the choppy seas prevented a periscope sighting of the trawler before the submarine rocketed to the surface in an "emergency blow." What will be missing from the debate is any serious examination of the question of why the submarine was executing an emergency blow in the first place.

Articles Archive
Hits: 4271

From Draft NOtices, March-April 2001

    

The extent to which the U.S. military has to comply with environmental laws varies from statute to statute. There are generally three ways they get around compliance with these laws: direct exemption, sovereign immunity, and the Unitary Executive policy. They are exempt from many important environmental and public safety laws, such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and sections of the Clean Water Act, and naval nuclear reactors are not regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Even when the law does apply to military operations, regulators have no ability to assess fines, shut down polluting operations or otherwise enforce compliance with the laws that cover the military. Communities neighboring military bases have less environmental protection than other cities in the nation. Until the military is brought under complete regulation, our public health and safety, as well as our environment, will be at increased risk from military pollution.

Articles Archive
Hits: 4507

From Draft NOtices, January-February 2001


— Ray Wolf

  

Imagine that communities all over a country are suffering from a multitude of war-related health problems. Imagine a community where girls as young as 13 years old are dying from ovarian cancer caused by military pollution. Imagine a community where 100% of the children are born contaminated by military toxic waste. Imagine a community where over 90% of adults and nearly 80% of children have multiple illnesses — including neurological disorders, respiratory problems, and lead contamination. Where would you guess these people live? Iraq? Yugoslavia? The former Soviet Union?

No, they live in the United States, and they are not the direct victims of a military attack. Instead, they are the victims of the U.S. government’s decades-long obsession with war preparations. They are the victims of contamination from U.S. military bases that has infiltrated and all but destroyed their communities. Predictably, the military denies responsibility. But now the residents have proof through independent testing and university studies, and they are fighting back.

Draft NOtices

Quarterly print newsletter

Subscribe now Learn more

 

Ninth CIRCUIT COURT RULING: CONFRONTING MILITARISM BY USING EQUAL ACCESS TO HIGH SCHOOLS

When the military comes to your local high school, you have a legal right to give students an opposing view. This has been the position taken by federal district courts in Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois and two federal appellate courts. The most broadly-worded decision came from a case that COMD took to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1980s. Here is the background:

Find Out More | Download PDF