To Service Members: Choose your Conscience Over Illegal Orders

[Ravenlocke]

Veterans For Peace

REFUSE ILLEGAL ORDERS!
RESIST ILLEGAL WARS!

https://x.com/VFPNational/status/2040934843836494086

[Rizotto]

Quoting Scott Ritter - April 7, 2026:
"Because we (i.e. the USA) can’t win this war of aggression we are getting ready to commit genocide on a scope and scale unimaginable… We will become the ultimate war criminal nation." ...
"To the generals, officers and the men serving in the United States military today, you cannot obey these orders."

“When the President of the United States threatens to terminate an entire civilization, we the people have a Constitutional responsibility to say no.”

Ritter’s Rant 084: Constitutional Responsibility

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NlgSHxV11CI

[Victoria]

I appreciate your heart in this, Rizotto and Ravenlocke. It's hard to describe how much I align with the imperative to resist unconscionable orders or how outraged I feel by war crimes and crimes against humanity... yet find myself betwixt and between because of upbringing as to a solution.  

The system seems to be moving in ways that escalate conflict and lead to outcomes which are neither humane nor peaceful. Resisting harmful orders matters immensely, but that conviction is complicated when you’re raised in a culture of service. I relate and second much of what McThorn writes.

Americans who have joined the Armed Services are historically by and large patriotic. 

A military in any nation being invited by foreign persons to stand down is almost comical. 

The demand for change or peace needs to come from American citizens. Citizens, when united, have the most powerful voice and weight inside the nation.

Most of my family is military or government, from an officer father, to a pilot brother, a sister at the Pentagon, another sister who was tapped for intelligence very young, another who works with a governor, cousins who are Seals and a great*** paternal grandfather who was the first Native American to attend West Point. On the other side, was Captain Henry Sinclair, with both Harriet Beecher Stowe (who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin) and Julia Ward Howe (who wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic) in direct lineage. That is to say they are proud of their heritage and there is longstanding tension in our family between moral resistance and patriotic support of the state.  Yet, my siblings and I were raised to serve and be consciously loyal.

I took the ASVAB and almost joined before college. Having grown up internationally, I realized that I could never commit to harming foreign friends and fellow human beings on command.  I have never been good at taking orders, defiant to a fault.

The military is based on the chain of command. It is better (far less complicated) to refuse service from the outset than to join and later seek discharge or desert. 

Anyone considering enlistment or the officer corps needs to ask themselves honestly, "Can I kill someone if ordered?"  or, at a minimum, can you participate in or be responsible for lethal force in the line of duty? 

I met my husband while campaigning and volunteering with a few groups, including Veterans for Peace...so I appreciate what you are posting and yet am inextricably tempered by and aware of the same as that which JackMcThorn has written.

In many ways military family members are trained by proximity. Though I am a misfit in our family, it was not easy to branch out from their expectations. For someone who is fully immersed during service and surrounded by team members in an active state of defense, the improbability of disengaging is amplified.

Yes, if all servicemen would lay down their weapons, there would be no war.

When only one side puts arms down in a conflict, it is surrender.

There is quite a lot going on behind the scenes involving the public, posturing and psychological tactics.
 
As far as I can see... the words I underlined below are an emphasis.
 

Conscientious objectors are frowned upon among american service people - going back decades. Americans are extremely proud to serve. Slackers are not treated well and do not last long or turn over a new leaf after awhile of peer-pressure [volunteers or conscripts]. Pressure to perform is a daily stressor for active duty. The few squeaky gears are not the majority. The military spends a lot of resources and money training people to be ready. They want a return on their investment by way of quick's the word and sharp's the action.

These people calling the hotline will do so under cover of darkness. They will probably be discharged dishonorably. They will never discuss their military service as it sort of didn't happen. They won't receive any of the 'Veteran' benefits. There is no majority that will follow through with this action; silent or otherwise out of 2 million active duty and reservist service members...  This is a double edged blade. Support the service person, support the war. It cuts and it bleeds. But there is a middle ground somewhere and I will find it."

[Rizotto]

Thanks Victoria. But let me point out that the conscientious objector material that I started this thread with is of USA origin. And there are many USA independent journalists, podcasters, and retired USA military personnel calling for the military staff currently engaged in the middle east conflict that they have a duty to NOT obey illegal orders, i.e. orders that violate international law. Regrettably, those efforts at passing this information have been suppressed. So, that is the reason for my starting this thread. As a Canadian, I'm only too aware that if Trump gave the order to the military to invade and control Canada, most of them would probably obediently do so, without thinking. Even though there would be no congressional approval for it.

It's amazing that Trump has commandeered the USA military to wage a destructive unprovoked war against Iran, killing thousands including school children, without congressional approval. And still, most of the USA soldiers keep obeying these illegal orders.

The worst is that those orders ultimately come from a foreign state, Israel. Let's not kid ourselves: due to Israel infiltrating and corrupting USA's political institutions, Israel has become in practice the chief commander of the USA military. We have heard from several retired USA military men testifying of what they observed, which is that Israeli intel & military agents are attending Pentagon meetings and making demands. What goes on behind the scene is probably much worse. The results are the genocides and land thefts in the middle east. The world is fed up of this carnage.

Why is the USA military still participating in this upside down corrupt mess? Are they not aware of the real agenda? Perhaps the information about this sordid reality is not reaching them? Or they don't want to hear it, is that what you are saying?

On the other hand, there will always be brave USA military like Scott Ritter above who'll keep speaking out as publicly as they can about these injustices.

[JackMcThorn]

Thank you kindly, Victoria. Your family's military history is quite something. In the u.s. there are families with many military connections. My family has a few but some go back every generation - like a right of passage.

Hegseth said something yester-day that I have been thinking about [sorry my copy is not verbatim] - he said the u.s. has used 1o% of it's total combat potential thus far during the past less than 4o days of the war.

The reason I am spending some time on this thought is because the emphasis by the media mainstream, the alt, and those streams that are ultimately anti-u.s. or anti-israel, is that some of the gloss-over as to what is actually happening is so negative and underwhelming that some data is going to sneak through. Some of this stream is The Art of War textbook thinking and dissemination. [This early evening main stream is talking about how the democrats reacted to trump's ceasefire saying that he 'chickened out' on committing potential war crimes. No matter what he does, they will disagree.]

I believe that the spooks took a little bit of credit yester-day regarding the downed 'back-seater' WSO of the F-15 for no other reason than to indicate something positive in the main stream. Now granted I am a strong advocate of 'loose lips sink ships' but I think that the risk negated the need for positivism in the media. Positivism, in that america had the nerve behind enemy lines for such an elaborate extraction. [There is a movie from 2oo1 called Behind Enemy Lines which details a similar situation [recovery] [but different] over Bosnia in the middle 199o's.]

I was once labeled impartial for my middle of the road approach to thinking particularly politically. Impartial means you don't care and my accuser suggested I pick a side and defend it. I defend the middle because I do care. If the emphasis on this discussion is the question of following criminal orders; then to pick a side and defend it at all costs is indeed akin to blindly following orders. The middle means you have the ability to move about the center. If you are picking a side, there is no movement - it's a hard left or a hard right. And when you find yourself on a hard left or hard right and they do something that forces you to 'ask questions' then what do you do? The other side won't look greener from your vantage point - they are the enemy [so-called]. The only place to go is 'less left' or 'less right', or 'more center'.

<L----------C----------R>

I do not see this line of thinking as impartial. And I do not think hard left or right people don't care. But they have no where to go unless they relax toward center. Movement about the center gives one options. I would rather have options than blind loyalty.

[Ravenlocke]

Posted by Victoria (here)
I appreciate your heart in this, Rizotto and Ravenlocke. It's hard to describe how much I align with the imperative to resist unconscionable orders or how outraged I feel by war crimes and crimes against humanity... yet find myself betwixt and between because of upbringing as to a solution.  

The system seems to be moving in ways that escalate conflict and lead to outcomes which are neither humane nor peaceful. Resisting harmful orders matters immensely, but that conviction is complicated when you’re raised in a culture of service. I relate and second much of what McThorn writes.

Americans who have joined the Armed Services are historically by and large patriotic. 

A military in any nation being invited by foreign persons to stand down is almost comical. 

The demand for change or peace needs to come from American citizens. Citizens, when united, have the most powerful voice and weight inside the nation.

Most of my family is military or government, from an officer father, to a pilot brother, a sister at the Pentagon, another sister who was tapped for intelligence very young, another who works with a governor, cousins who are Seals and a great*** paternal grandfather who was the first Native American to attend West Point. On the other side, was Captain Henry Sinclair, with both Harriet Beecher Stowe (who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin) and Julia Ward Howe (who wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic) in direct lineage. That is to say they are proud of their heritage and there is longstanding tension in our family between moral resistance and patriotic support of the state.  Yet, my siblings and I were raised to serve and be consciously loyal.

I took the ASVAB and almost joined before college. Having grown up internationally, I realized that I could never commit to harming foreign friends and fellow human beings on command.  I have never been good at taking orders, defiant to a fault.

The military is based on the chain of command. It is better (far less complicated) to refuse service from the outset than to join and later seek discharge or desert. 

Anyone considering enlistment or the officer corps needs to ask themselves honestly, "Can I kill someone if ordered?"  or, at a minimum, can you participate in or be responsible for lethal force in the line of duty? 

I met my husband while campaigning and volunteering with a few groups, including Veterans for Peace...so I appreciate what you are posting and yet am inextricably tempered by and aware of the same as that which JackMcThorn has written.

In many ways military family members are trained by proximity. Though I am a misfit in our family, it was not easy to branch out from their expectations. For someone who is fully immersed during service and surrounded by team members in an active state of defense, the improbability of disengaging is amplified.

Yes, if all servicemen would lay down their weapons, there would be no war.

When only one side puts arms down in a conflict, it is surrender.

There is quite a lot going on behind the scenes involving the public, posturing and psychological tactics.
 
As far as I can see... the words I underlined below are an emphasis.
 

Conscientious objectors are frowned upon among american service people - going back decades. Americans are extremely proud to serve. Slackers are not treated well and do not last long or turn over a new leaf after awhile of peer-pressure [volunteers or conscripts]. Pressure to perform is a daily stressor for active duty. The few squeaky gears are not the majority. The military spends a lot of resources and money training people to be ready. They want a return on their investment by way of quick's the word and sharp's the action.

These people calling the hotline will do so under cover of darkness. They will probably be discharged dishonorably. They will never discuss their military service as it sort of didn't happen. They won't receive any of the 'Veteran' benefits. There is no majority that will follow through with this action; silent or otherwise out of 2 million active duty and reservist service members...  This is a double edged blade. Support the service person, support the war. It cuts and it bleeds. But there is a middle ground somewhere and I will find it."

Thank you so much Victoria for your honest and poignant perspective on this topic. It is really needed for us (non military folk) to understand both sides and more importantly to understand where the people in the military are coming from and how they follow their orders in the military.

And thank you for sharing about yourself and about your family background.

Only thing I can think of is that perhaps the information in this thread may deter those that might be thinking of joining the military. (Unless the draft is installed of course.)

On the whole, thank you again Victoria, your valuable input is really needed at this time to round out this topic.

[Rizotto]

Remember, a year ago Charlie Kirk posted this. Now it seems like a lifetime ago. Charlie was killed and young americans were sent to die anyway.
Thousands of Iranians have been slaughtered. Thousands of Lebanese are currently being massacred...
________________________________________________________________________________________

Charlie Kirk – April 3, 2025

It’s going unnoticed because so much other news is happening, but the war drums are beating again in D.C. The warmongers worry this is their last chance to get the white whale they’ve been chasing for thirty years, an all-out regime change war against Iran.

A new Middle East war would be a catastrophic mistake. Our military stockpiles are depleted from three years of backing Ukraine. Our effort to reshore manufacturing has only just begun and will take years to bear fruit. War would worsen our already immense deficit and national debt. Iran is larger than Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan combined. A war would not be easy and could easily become a calamity.

Thanks to President Trump’s restraint during his first term, America has a golden opportunity to pull away from Middle East quagmires for good. We shouldn’t throw that opportunity away so that sone D.C. has-beens can feel tough by sending young Americans to die yet again.

https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/

[Rizotto]

"WAKE UP, AMERICA!" Max Blumenthal's TERRIFYING Revelation: Our Nation Has Been SECRETLY CAPTURED!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=a3fQASGTwZs

[Victoria]

Ravenlocke,

Thank you. Perhaps.🌹 I haven't seen what you and Rizotto posted anywhere else. Without your posts, one might not be aware there were options or significant people speaking out. There are many observers of Avalon who don't log in and may be so moved.


Rizotto,
I don't know if this fully addresses what you wrote. I'm not trying to deter you from continuing to post.

Truthfully, I cannot speak for others but wanted to share what might be very simplified, broad reasoning based on experience and observation; to explain what I've inferred from several levels of proximal connection.

I join in your frustration, though mine is with our disengaged public and some in the administration, not our servicemen. Most of our men and women serving are honorable and do the best they can within the system to protect the constitution, the nation and ensure laws are abided. The entire chain of command explanation was not to say anyone is mindless, blind or impotent... far from it, there are plenty of people who are keenly aware, but every action has a reaction which may not be what the public would expect.

Depending upon the theater, laying down arms only on one side translates to surrender. Or worse.

the conscientious objector material that I started this thread with is of USA origin. And there are many USA independent journalists, podcasters, and retired USA military personnel"

Yes, and I applaud their efforts and insights. We are in a fascinating time when alternative avenues for information are enabled and independent journalism can engage people in a scope not possible previously. It's easy to acknowledge why various parties would like to lock down or govern online access and speech.

Sharing their work with what might be the expected impact is more difficult, though. In my family, and within their circles, only one person out of dozens will take the time to read or listen to such things- which I view as a representative litmus for the larger intended audience of your thread. They have an internal culture shaped by OPSEC requirements and informational constraints which buffers against outside data. I don't press the matter, because that shuts people down and the work they perform is very strenuous, dangerous and dedicated.

The one willing individual who welcomes my concerns becomes agitated by the contrast of information. I'm aware that everyone they are surrounded with presents a much different scenario- to the point there is a crisis in trying to grasp what is real and what is not, what is at stake, what is not. What is propaganda, what is not...and of course who is actually doing what. Signal saturation and fragmentation produce parallel versions of reality, and that erodes resolve - which is the last thing I want for people charged with serving or protecting the nation.

Why is the USA military still participating in this upside down corrupt mess? Are they not aware of the real agenda? Perhaps the information about this sordid reality is not reaching them? Or they don't want to hear it, is that what you are saying?"

I've answered this to the best of my ability regarding our armed forces. The civilian public is a different matter. It seems that concerned world citizens sounding the alarm without accompaniment of local media (or something mainstream mirroring their distress) typically causes cognitive dissonance. It falls on many American ears as foreign interference.

Ironically, the idea of meddling and influence does not translate easily to their consideration of allies. That's an alien concept to much of the public until very recently. It is generally not being confirmed or reinforced by their institutions and moral support structures. The categorization of being an ally, along with authoritative repetition of a message that some people are victims requiring protection and others are aggressors, apparently overwrites any question of impropriety quite readily.

I hear a lot of, "That's propaganda. It's not official. That's not a legitimate source," to shut down questions and conversation.

Even when the media of a person's choice covers such topics, a significant portion of the public will look at it as a mere product of the opposite political aisle. Then, everything pertinent is tuned out.

Many civilian Americans appear to be completely oblivious to the status and degree of what is happening in Palestine, Turkey and Lebanon. They are polarized and not getting the information. College age and high school students seem to be in tune with all of what you post although they are often filtered out for being young, inexperienced and left-biased by the institutions.

Which is why I mention that citizens, when united, have the most powerful voice and weight inside the nation. If they are not of shared mind, just deeply divided, nothing can be approached, processed or utilized rationally. Confusion and inaction ensue.

I tend to look at groups and people like cells. If they are broken, trapped or in a state of dis-ease then everything is chaos; the body as a whole cannot receive or respond appropriately. If the masses haven't had the exposure or can't begin to process the information conceptually, then they can't understand the breadth of what is happening and move to make appropriate changes without looking to external authority for direction. There is an abundance of competition in controlling their attention and information flow.

Orienting to the centerline, like JackMcThorn illustrated, IS actually a solution- it lends clearance, stability and reaction time (options) for people...and aircraft. That applies to thoughts and physicality which is why so much goes toward influencing the public to stratify themselves along a clear and decisive left - right paradigm.

Charlie Kirk spoke sincerely and openly encouraging masses of impressionable youth to do the same, imploring institutions to teach them how to think- not what to think so they could decipher the truth. His influence was monumental and had potential to become a significant deterrent to support for this war.

Based on that, perceived threat level probably keeps a lot of people, who otherwise might say and do more, silent. This is a high-risk reality. I do not think the public has thoroughly considered ramifications of full situational awareness and the actions it might catalyze.

[Bill Ryan]

Published by NPR on 10 April:

• https://www.npr.org/2026/04/10/nx-s1...tious-objector

There's growing disquiet in the military. The Iran war made it worse

Bill Galvin has spent much of the past month answering the phone.

"It's been very, very busy," he says. Galvin is the counseling director at the Center on Conscience and War, which helps run the 24-hour GI Rights Hotline, set up to inform service members of their options for military discharge.

Most callers are asking how to apply to become a conscientious objector — a difficult, invasive and rarely used process. But they're also airing their concerns and frustrations, often anonymously, as the hotline allows them a space to do so without repercussions.

Military members are citing myriad reasons for wanting to leave, but the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran has been a powerful motivator. In March alone, Galvin's center took on more than 80 new clients — almost twice as many as it takes on in an average year. The busiest single day saw 12 new clients join, with one person saying four other members of their platoon were also interested.


Bill Galvin answers calls at his desk in Washington, D.C.

Those numbers are a drop in the bucket when compared with the more than 1.3 million people enlisted. But for outside observers and former military officials, those calls and conversations are an indication of a troubling disquiet within the ranks.

The uptick is part of a larger pattern of military members seeking ways to end their service, according to NPR interviews with several organizations like Galvin's and military members who deal directly with these issues. While there is no hard contemporaneous data on the number of members seeking to exit, the people NPR spoke to for this story say they have seen undeniable cracks in the military's ability to retain troops, largely due to low morale or ethical concerns.

Recruitment began to rebound in 2024, prior to President Trump's reelection, and after a major slump during the COVID-19 pandemic. In December, the Pentagon said all five branches of the military hit their recruitment targets. But retention is an essential tool for the military to keep institutional knowledge and expertise.

"Retention is the only thing holding the Army up, from a metrics standpoint. And it is crumbling fast," one career counselor with the Army, the largest branch of the military, told NPR. That person spoke on the condition of anonymity as they are not authorized to speak publicly. They said that the climate and cultural shifts within the military under this administration are the main reasons people are giving for leaving.

"It has been a mess, and many individuals feel frustration throughout the ranks," that counselor said.

Military members are choosing to retire early or to not reenlist when their contracts are up, according to those who spoke with NPR. Others are applying for medical separation or are breaking their enlistment contracts regardless of the consequences.

Kori Schake, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, says some of the turmoil stems from the Trump administration "dragging the military into the culture wars" and creating "the perception that women and people of color haven't earned leadership responsibilities in our military."

"It is not just women and people of color in the service who are feeling discouraged. It's people who wonder whether the military can preserve its inclusive meritocracy under the kind of political pressure that major politicians are putting it under," says Schake, who served at the State Department during the George W. Bush administration.

Adam Weinstein of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, which supports U.S. military restraint worldwide, says that the upheaval has sent a signal to upcoming talent.

"When you see chaos within the U.S. military, to some degree, at least coming out of the Pentagon, what message does that send to the best and brightest who might want to make a career out of the U.S. military?" Weinstein says.

Galvin says nearly all the callers he talks to mention the bombing of a girls school in Iran on the first day of the war, which killed at least 165 civilians, many of them children. A preliminary assessment determined the U.S. was at fault, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly. NPR previously reported that the girls school was once part of what had been an Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval base and may have been shown on outdated U.S. target lists as a military building.

"It comes up almost always. It's like, 'I can't be a part of something that's doing that,'" he says.

When asked about retention, the Pentagon pushed back on the assertion that there's a problem. "There are zero retention concerns for Fiscal Year 2026. Every service is meeting its targets, and any suggestion otherwise is completely false," said Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson in an email to NPR. Service members who are seeking to leave in this moment wouldn't show up in any hard data for months or even years, according to experts.

"President Trump has restored readiness, lethality and a focus on warfighters at the Department of War," White House spokesperson Anna Kelly wrote, noting high recruitment numbers, in an email to NPR when asked about morale.

It is true that the military has faced a recruitment crisis in recent years, with Rand finding that in 2023, the Army, Navy and Air Force all fell short of goals. But data shows that the uptick really began under the Biden administration, likely because of an increase in pay for military members, according to Rand, and as the military continued improving the recruitment process and boosted advertising and marketing.

"The most angry I've ever felt"

A full-time member of the Ohio Air National Guard told NPR he called the GI Rights Hotline the day after the Iran war began. He'd been struggling with his role in the military, especially under the Trump administration, for months and wanted to explore options for separation.

But when three airmen from his base were among six killed in a refueling accident in Iraq on March 12, he says it made him feel like he couldn't wait any longer.

"I think it was the most angry I've ever felt in my life," he said, asking to not use his name as he worries that speaking to the press will make the separation process more difficult for him. "In that moment, I wanted nothing more than to just leave and wash my hands of that place and just be done."

He has been with the guard for more than a decade and still has more than two years left in his contract, but he has started applying to jobs outside the military. He says he doesn't know what the ramifications of that decision will be, but he's willing to deal with whatever it is.

"I'm kind of just rolling with it, with the idea that there's a light at the end of this," he says.

"Secretary of Culture Wars"

Since Trump began his second term, his administration's legally questionable use of the armed forces — from his deployment of the National Guard to several cities led by Democrats to U.S. strikes on Venezuelan boats — has left a growing number in the military unsettled and demoralized, according to NPR interviews with service members.

The White House has also worked to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs within the military, leading many to question how they fit in. And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has conducted a major restructuring of the Pentagon, including widespread firings of four-star admirals and generals, most recently Gen. Randy George, then the Army chief of staff, in the midst of the war with Iran.

Now, as that war has spread throughout the region and killed more than a dozen U.S. service members, many are worried about what comes next.

Some are opting simply to not reenlist or to retire early.

The Army career counselor said that in 2025, they had the highest number of retirees come to see them for guidance on getting ready to leave than in any previous year in their experience, approximating nearly a doubling of such retirees from 2024. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the career counselor said many on first-term contracts are asking how to leave active duty early and become part of the Individual Ready Reserve, in which they're on call but not actively serving.

Several members of the military told NPR that it has been difficult for people to book a slot in the Transition Assistance Program. That program was recently made mandatory for anyone separating from service, including retirement.

One high-ranking member of the Air Force, who chose to retire early last year due to concerns over how the Trump administration was leading the military, told NPR that the program they originally sought last year was booked out for six months. They eventually found a program at a different base.

"When talking to the program coordinator, he told me that he had never seen so much demand for the course," the Air Force member said, speaking on condition of anonymity, as their retirement is still in process.

They called the popularity of the program a "lagging indicator," referring to how many people are trying to leave as a result of concerns over leadership, even before the Iran war began. "This is a big deal," they said.

Another U.S. military official who spoke on condition of anonymity, as they were not authorized to speak publicly, pointed to the recent incident where Hegseth intervened to stop the promotions of four officers — two Black, two female — to one-star generals.

"The Secretary of Culture Wars is waging an internal battle," they said, referring to Hegseth. "This can only accelerate the brain drain we're already seeing."

In response to that comment, Wilson, the Pentagon press secretary, told NPR, "Leadership matters and men and women are excited to serve under the strong leadership of President Trump and Secretary Hegseth," while referencing the high recruitment numbers.

Conscientious objectors

One of the most time-intensive ways to separate is to apply to become a conscientious objector, meaning someone who has decided they are morally against war.

Hundreds of thousands of men applied for the status during the Vietnam War to avoid being drafted. There's no active draft now, so applicants are primarily service members who voluntarily signed up.

"It's people who have a strong moral objection to what they're seeing going on in the world and don't want any part in it anymore," says Mike Prysner, executive director of the Center on Conscience and War and an Army veteran.


In 1965, a man looks over a booklet that's opened to a page with the heading "Conscientious Objectors Under Selective Service."

In 1970, the Supreme Court ruled that religious beliefs were no longer necessary to claim conscientious objector status. Prysner says many of the people whom the center has been working with recently have cited Israel's war in Gaza — as well as the United States' military support to Israel — as a turning point for them morally questioning war at large.

After Trump came into office for his second term, calls surged around specific moments too, like when the National Guard and Marines were deployed to Los Angeles.

When the U.S. and Israel launched the war against Iran, he says, there was a shift. The center used to get a handful of calls a week; now it's usually three or four a day asking about conscientious objector status.

"When Iran hit, I think it was kind of like a detonator for all of those things that had been building," Prysner says, noting that the center is getting calls across ranks.

"People with really accomplished careers, people in very elite jobs, people who are in Special Forces, people who are Top Gun fighter pilots, physicians, surgeons. ... Our highest-ranking CO client right now is a major in the military," he said.

Many service members don't even really know that applying as a conscientious objector, or CO, is an option.

"I never in five years in Retention had someone ask about a CO packet," said the Army career counselor, who has served for nearly two decades. "But in 2025, I had a handful of inquiries for help. So, I personally had to learn about the process, rather suddenly."

The application process is long. It involves a written statement, a psych evaluation, an interview with a military chaplain and an investigating officer assigned to each case, according to those familiar with it. It almost certainly takes months, even stretching into years.

But submitting an application means a service member has to be removed from duties they object to immediately — so it's also one way to keep from being imminently deployed.

Galvin and Prysner say that has become incredibly pertinent in recent weeks.

"We're getting calls from people who are going to be deployed, like within days, or sometimes even the next day, and so we're helping them put together at least a very brief statement that will hopefully then get them on record," Galvin says, noting that he knows of several members who have avoided imminent deployment to the Middle East this way in recent weeks.

Steve Woolford is a resource counselor with Quaker House, which provides counseling and support to service members who are questioning their role in the military, and also helps run the GI Rights Hotline. He says they too have had call volume more than double since the Iran war began, with a majority of callers expressing interest in the conscientious objector application process.

"We've had a lot of calls from people who don't identify as nonviolent or pacifists," says Woolford. "They identify as everyday service members who are willing to defend the country but feel very unsettled and suspicious about the ways the military is being used now."

In those cases, he says, he tries to talk them through other options that might be available to them, such as medical separation or reassignment.

Woolford has been doing this job and answering the hotline for more than 25 years. He took calls through both the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, when call volume also spiked. But now, he says, it feels busier — and different.

"People are very, very confused. The suspicion or distrust of the government seems to be much higher right now," he says, noting that many are expressing concern they might be asked to carry out illegal orders or be complicit in war crimes.

A weight lifted

Karl is a former military physician who was honorably discharged as a conscientious objector in March. He applied for the status back in 2025. He asked NPR not to use his full name as he's still in legal proceedings with the military over his discharge.

He called the process an "enormous undertaking" and "terrifying" but ultimately something he felt compelled to do. And while he acknowledged that becoming a conscientious objector is intense, he encouraged others to reflect on their service too, even if they don't choose the same path.

"It is legal for people to question. It may not be comfortable, but it is legal. And while we have those rights, then you're free to exercise them," Karl says. "It means you're a human and you're allowed to have doubts."

The Ohio Air National Guard member who is planning to separate says he has talked to others in his unit about his decision. Most have been supportive.

"The people that I've talked to about it, there's not a negative perception of it. And I think a part of that is because a lot of people know that what we're doing isn't right," he says.

And he thinks he'll be healthier once he's no longer a part of something that he says doesn't align with his values anymore.

"It will definitely be a weight off my back," he says.

[DustOff72]

An excellent discussion here, but so good to see. My time in Vietnam was with a helicopter ambulance unit, and being in the time of the draft, many of the combat medics were Conscientious Objectors. In those days it was the Draft Board that granted that status, at least as best I can remember. I joined the Army by way of ROTC in college.

This conversation on this thread reminds me of the words of Hartley Shawcross, a US prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials. "There comes a point when a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is to also answer to his own conscience".

The spirit of Shawcross and Smedley Butler still animates people today, and that is a good thing.

Not a factor in the Vietnam era, at least as far as I know, is the horrible situation aware young men and women today are coming to the realization of, is the pure evil of Zionist influence in Washington DC government. As for me, I hope that Persia will crush the wicked people in the Israeli Government.

[Ravenlocke]

ABC News

1h
As of Tuesday, 399 service members have been wounded in the war with Iran, according to a U.S. official.

Three service members are considered "seriously wounded," though it's unclear if those troops are the same who have been included in previous counts.

https://x.com/ABC/status/2044156747657482635

[Ravenlocke]

Greta Berlin
@Truegreta
Casualty COVER UP: They honored Maj. Sorffly Davius at his memorial. Then left him off the casualty list. He’s not the only one.

The Intercept has now published two investigations exposing what one defense official called a "casualty cover-up." The Pentagon keeps releasing lowball numbers. When reporters ask for accurate counts, Central Command stops responding.

They've ignored more than a dozen requests for clarification in the past week alone.
Here's what the numbers actually look like.

The Pentagon's own casualty tracking system can't even agree with itself. One page lists 372 troops wounded in action. Another page, updated the same day, lists 357. Central Command told The Intercept the number was 303. Three different numbers from the same government about the same war.

And all three of those numbers are undercounts.

More than 200 sailors were treated for smoke inhalation and lacerations after a fire aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford before it limped out of the war zone for repairs.

None of them are counted.

A soldier named Maj. Sorffly Davius died of sudden illness while deployed to Kuwait in support of the war. A congressman spoke at his memorial. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs honored him by name. He's not on the Pentagon's casualty list.

The Air Force officer rescued from behind enemy lines in Iran was, in Trump's own words, "bleeding rather profusely" and "injured quite badly." The Pentagon claims "zero American casualties" from that mission.

Hegseth stood at a podium and said "not a single thing we've done has put an American troop in more of a harm's way." Current and former Pentagon officials say that's a lie, that the Department of War failed to adequately protect troops on bases across the Middle East, forcing service members to retreat to hotels and office buildings during attacks.

This is not new behavior. After Iran struck Al-Asad Air Base during Trump's first term, he said "no Americans were harmed." The Pentagon eventually admitted 110 troops suffered traumatic brain injuries. Trump dismissed those as "headaches."

The Army, whose soldiers man interceptor missile systems on bases across the region, has suffered the most casualties: 251 wounded according to the Pentagon's own data.

The Army is only now seeking sensors to detect blast overpressure injuries that cause traumatic brain injuries. They started a war without the equipment to even measure what it's doing to the people fighting it.

And the long-term cost? If the roughly 50,000 troops deployed to the Middle East file disability claims at the same rate as Gulf War veterans, it would add $600 billion in costs over their lifetimes. The Pentagon wants $200 billion in supplemental war funding now. The true cost will be in the trillions.

They started a war without planning for the families who fled Bahrain. They started a war without equipment to measure brain injuries. And now they're lying about how many Americans have been hurt

https://x.com/Truegreta/status/2042443784060055669

https://x.com/MintPressNews/status/2044165873355632749

[Pavel Korchagin]

A military that purges itself of those with a conscience and those who refuse to follow illegal orders is absolutely NOT desirable

[rgray222]

Posted by Pavel Korchagin (here)
A military that purges itself of those with a conscience and those who refuse to follow illegal orders is absolutely NOT desirable

Mandatory military conscription requires all able-bodied men and women, usually starting at the age of 18, to serve, and is far less desirable. In contrast, the United States maintains a fully voluntary military, which offers significant advantages. So far, we have seen no verified evidence that the USA has carried out illegal orders under the Trump administration. In contrast Russia's conscripted military, multiple sources indicate that Russian military actions in Ukraine violate international law. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for President Vladimir Putin for alleged war crimes. These are simply the facts as they stand today.

A volunteer-based military yields numerous benefits, including higher morale, reduced costs, increased professionalism, and better retention rates. Additionally, it provides valuable by-products benefits such as education, healthcare, and job training. For many disadvantaged youth, military service can serve as a pathway out of poverty.

Some individuals may become conscientious objectors after enlisting; this is only natural when recruiting people at age 18. It is by far much better to establish a legal pathway for COs without penalizing or "purging" them, as is done in a voluntary military. The punitive consequences of true conscientious objectors in a society that forces its young people into the military are horrific and archaic.

My feeling is that all countries should dispense with military spending and standing military armies, but if the world persists in this wasteful and destructive practice, it is far more desirable to have a voluntary military. Conscription only creates an organization without a soul and encourages more war.

[Rizotto]

"So begins the largest veteran and military family act of civil disobedience since the Iraq war"
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1006291058398084

[Rizotto]

"You can file as a conscientious objector and keep your benefits based off time and service. Please call the G. I. Rights hotline (1-877-447-4487)" https://www.facebook.com/reel/1514010886987194