Mejia on Carl Webb
Some of you may remember the investigation we did on Carl Webb a month-and-a-half ago. Webb made several comments on the internet that urged members of the military to sabotage equipment and otherwise disrupt military operations while stationed in Iraq. We had Webb’s military records and proved that he wasn’t eligible for membership in IVAW. That post has yet to be disputed with any evidence to the contrary.
Webb has become a point of contention among members of the IVAW for quite sometime because some members of the IVAW don’t like being associated with other members who advocate killing US troops. The latest to resign because of Webb, is Jeff Peskoff, a member of this forum.
Since the Board of Directors of the IVAW has been hesitant about doing anything about a rogue member advocating treason and sabotage from the safety of his keyboard in Austin, TX, Peskoff finally got a statement last night on Facebook from Camilo Mejia, IVAW’s Chairman of the Board of Directors. That statement follows;
Carl’s statements have not been causing controversy for a few months; they have actually been causing controversy for a few years now. The first time I heard Carl-related controversies was actually in Arcata, CA (what do you know!), and it was from Tim Goodrich – This was (I believe) in May of 2005, before we even had a BOD, at a time when the leadership of IVAW was in its infant stage. Carl’s statement back then was also along of the lines of supporting the Iraqiresistance. Although the satements were without any direct mention of killing American troops nor sabotaging American vehicles, they were enough for many people to ask for his head on a platter. Then, as now, my position was that I do not think Carl should be expelled from IVAW.
Here is why:
Suppose for a moment that we did not posses the most powerful military the earth has ever seen. Suppose also that our streets were occupied by the most powerful military the earth has ever seen in what is known to the entire world as an illegal, criminal and immoral occupation, and that a million Americans had been killed by these occupaying troops and that four to five million Americans were displaced inside as well as outside of the United Sates as a result of said occupation, and that eight million Americans were in need of emergency medical assistance, and that just about every American personally knew someone who had been killed, maimed, or tortured by these occupaying military.
In this theoretical scenario, how many IVAW members (who would be regular civilians living under this occupation I have just described) do you think would advocate for and support armed resistance against the occupiers? How many young Americans would enlist in the ranks of the armed resistance and, incapable of meeting this formidable military face-to-face, place bombs on the roads, and sabotage the vehicles of the occupaying military? Let’s go back in time to the revolutionary war, when the minute men engaged the British army from the distance, from behind the concealment of trees, instead of face-to-face in a more European, gentleman-like kind of way. The British called them terrorists, because they fought the best way they could against the most powerful military on earth at that time. These revolutionary Americans are heroes because they fought for the self-determination of this country against the British army. No body gives them any shit for doing that – they had the right to defend themselves, and their land, by any means necessary, and with all the means available to them, including “acts of terrorism” and “sabotage.”
Back to Carl’s controversial statements:
Why is it so easy for us to call this occupation criminal and immoral and yet so difficult for us to afford Iraqis the same rights we feel entitled to? If we may call the US occupation of Iraq illegal and criminal, and we can support our own right to fight an occupation, then why can’t we support the right of Iraqis to do the same? And why do we want to crucify Carl for saying exactly what I have just said here?
I don’t want American troops to be killed, nor our vehicles to be sabotaged. And my approach to the issue is to demand immediate and absolute withdrawal from Iraq so none of that takes place. Our concentration, as an organization, should be to stop the violence and to promote peace, but that does not give us the right to tell our members they cannot support national liberation movements (Don’t we support the national liberation of Iraq?), even when those movements implicate that resistance fighters will kill and sabotage our troops when our troops are engaged in illegal and criminal occupations. What Carl says is nothing more than a differnt face of the same IVAW coin, the ugly face that no one wants to see or acknowledge. No, it’s easier to ignore the analysis, to not ask the hard questions of what occupations mean to the occupied, and to what degree they are allowed to fight the same way we would be allowed to fight, were we ever in their shoes. No, it’s easier to claim “there has been a violation of the code of conduct” by this “non-combat black radical who didn’t even serve in Iraq.” I am sorry, but I have to go there as well. I think the same statements would be tolerated if Carl’s skin was white, his eyes blue, his politics mainstream, and if he served in Iraq. The notion that there isn’t a racist factor in this equation is simply laughable. The attitude here is not one of reflection, or analysis. No one is asking for dialogue or debate. No the attitude here is more along the lines of “let’s throw this black, non-combat radical out of our organzation” for forcing us to think hard about “our own position!” I’m sorry, I cannot support that! And I will fight this resolution to remove Carl from IVAW with every intellectual cell I have in my brain, with every word I am able to speak and write, with my principles and convictions, because I understand that the issue goes far beyond Carl himself and into the heart of a very comfortable and hypocritical position many IVAW members have assumed, which I find quite racist against not only Carl, but also against Iraqis themselves.
The board has not ignored the complaints about Carl. We have dealt with each and every one of them, or at least the ones that were formally presented to us. We have just had the sense not to throw him out or punish him based on the allegations that have been brought against him. I am only speaking for myself here, but I don’t think this case is any different. The board has not yet discussed Daniel’s proposal, but we did discuss Carl’s latest controversial statements on our most recent conference call.
We decided to deal with Carl internally, while issuing a call for unity; unity accross political and philosophical disagreements through respectful dialogue and debate, and in a non-punitive (kick Carl out) way. The board concluded that any statement calling for the splinttering of IVAW is a clear violation of the code of conduct, but such violations are not necessarily grounds for termination of membership, not right away at least. Expelling a member from the organization is one of the toughest choices a board can make, and should only be used as a final option. Are we at that stage yet? How many of the members who want to terminate Carl have asked for an open discussion on the issue? How many have asked Carl for a friendly debate? How many people have asked Carl exactly what he means, and if he For the good of IVAW I really hope the board (this one and the new one coming up in August) and the membership have enough sense to view this as an opportunity for us to come together,and to be made stronger by the diversity of our views, and not as an opportunity to promote intolerance, and further fracture what so many of us have worked so hard to build.
So there you have it – the IVAW advocates for peace, except when it comes to killing US troops. And in the event that you don’t stand for killing US troops, you’re a racist. Carl Webb is a Marxist, Camilo Mejia is a Marxist. Rather than save his organization from the antics of a mooch and a thug like Carl Webb, Mejia “will fight this resolution to remove Carl from IVAW with every intellectual cell I have in my brain”.
So if I were a member of the IVAW, at this point, I’d be asking myself “what is the value of my membership?” The Board has clearly taken the side of one member over the entire membership, not on an ideological basis (Mejia admits that Webb’s comments are distasteful), but for purely political reasons. And if you don’t agree with the board, you’re a racist.
Peskoff responds;
Enough said Camilo..you can keep going on, but
this is all I needed to hear from you “Then, as now, my position was that I do not think Carl should be expelled from IVAW.”That’s great…..Let it be known that the Chairman of the Board at Iraq Veterans Against the War agrees with Carl Webb’s stance that American Soldiers should sabatoge American Troop’s vehicle’s inside a combat zone. Let it also be known that the Chairman of the Board at Iraq Veterans Against the War agrees with the statement “then I go on the record as advocating violence against American troops.” And lastly the Chairman of the Board at Iraq Veterans Against the War also thinks it’s okay to “splinter IVAW so that the reactionary conservative elements can be forced out.”
Awesome stuff, Thanks Camilo!!
wow….Now I’m a freakin racist???? what the hell.
Did I ever mention Carl’s skin color at all? Nope wow….we are all racists now. Thanks Camilo. You lost all creditability when you called us racists. I don’t even remember a single thing you said, and I don’t want to read it again to find out….the only part I can remember is your attack on me for being a racist. Please cite anywhere, anytime, or anyplace you have witnessed me spewing any racism…please!
And Army Sergeant;
Hey Camilo, here’s a question or two for you.
1) Carl has openly stated that he only remains in IVAW to splinter it and to force out the non-revolutionary elements. How is this not divisive?
2) How can you be such a hypocrite, and have such colossal gall, to say that you defend Carl’s right to say whatever he pleases and be as divisive as he likes, when you attempted to have me thrown out of the organization for my own free speech about you and the ISO?
3) Why is it racist if Jeff and some others want to kick out Carl who is black, but not racist and sexist when you kicked the only female minority member off the board and tried to have me thrown out of the organization? I’m not blue eyed and blonde haired either, in case you haven’t noticed. Does that make you a sexist?
Also, Camilo, you may not have been paying attention for the last /two years/, but people have tried to have this discussion with him nicely. I know you were not a member of Afghanistance, but some of us were, and saw how jacked up his comments there were too.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Usual Suspects
Wow, I imagine that Army Sergeant is leaving soon too?
Wow! Are Carl Webb & Camilo Mejia in the military, in any status (Active, Reserve, whatever)? Maybe it doesn’t matter, military or civilian.
What matters, is WHY aren’t these (I hesitate to use the word) people under arrest for conspiracy & co-conspiracy for treason, sedition, & sabatoge.
Or at least b**h-slapped a couple of times upside the head to release the vaccuum between their ears.
Camilo Mejia huh?
There was a time in this country when a Convicted Felon(Art. 85 (Desertion) and Naturalized Citizen would have been Deported from this country and sent back to his birthplace.
We did it with all manner of Mobsters, Camilo should Kiss the ICE’s collective ass for not doing so now.
There it is. Everything the “progressive” socialist left represents in a nutshell: Double standards, no objective belief system containing concepts of right or wrong (regardless of whether they are derived from secular or religious dogma), advocacy of violence while building a reputation on repudiation of violence, all wrapped in cries of elitism and racism if you disagree with those delusional opinions. A few things are important to note about this letter. Primarily, IVAW has previously received media attention and material support from other people in “the movement” because of the supposed credibility of its members as Iraq veterans, and its non-violent approach towards changing the policy goals of the United States in order to bring an end the war in Iraq. The moral high ground of change through non violence has been ceded. IVAW is now, by Mejia’s admission, nothing more than a subversive, revolutionary organization that supports acts of treason. There is no sense in having an argument or a debate with people who practice such relativism. Someone could (hypothetically speaking, of course) spend time trying to explain to Mejia that while it may be permissible in a theoretical world to support “national liberation movements” against your own country, we do not live in a theoretical world. We live in a real world. We are citizens of the country that started the war in Iraq, and as citizens of the United States we possess legitimate, non-violent, means to bring an end to that war. Those legitimate tactics include marches, protests, press releases, media appearances, and lobbying members of Congress. Decisions of war and peace are policy level decisions made by our elected representatives. We can change those policies through those legitimate, non-violent channels if we can bring people to our side. Advocacy of violent opposition to the war in Iraq is a tacit admission of the failure of IVAW to bring people into “the movement.” ?Not in the real world, nor in the one imagined in Mejia’s head, do citizens of a republic get to throw their hands in the air and say, “Fuck it, I’m going to start… Read more »
Let’s see if we can classify what these asshats are publishing and spreading. First up, the ‘S’ word:
sedition??/s??d???n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation (si-dish-uhn)
–noun 1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3. Archaic. rebellious disorder.
Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.
Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.
The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).
Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one’s state. Sedition is encouraging one’s fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one’s country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.
Ok…let’s look at this one: treason??- triz?n- (tree-zuhn) –noun 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2. a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state. 3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery. To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. However, Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses which undermine the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason. The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states “whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and… Read more »
I can only say “unbelievable!” and the rest of my sentiment is one loooong beeeeep…
Mejia “will fight this resolution to remove Carl from IVAW with every intellectual cell I have in my brain”.
That should be shorter than a Mike Tyson fight….and you could spot him an ear……
I will just point out one very happy thing that makes my heart sing.
As of August 9, Camilo Mejia will, unless he manages to stage a violent Sandinista-style coup, no longer be the Chair of the BoD, and in fact, will no longer be a director of IVAW anymore.
In many ways, this is why he is trying to spew crazy shit now, so we’re stuck with it. Do not take his words to represent all of us.
If you look closely, you can see Camilo in the back of the news guy in this video:
Army Sergeant: You read the part about the BoD reaching a consensus on Webb’s membership, right? He’s not the only one who thinks that way. I’ve seen the bios of the prospective members of the new board. I don’t see anything changing.
TSO: From my cold, dead hand….
Those jokers are leaving too, Jonn. At the end of the day, the people left standing I’m convinced are going to be better-or at least, will have a voting majority, which will be good enough for government work.
I’m actually going to be profiling some of the candidates (at least the ones I know) on my blog at some point…kind of a “Better Know a Candidate” deal.
Better? Isn’t that like saying, “I scored with my cousin after the prom, but at least it wasn’t my sister.”
“they are just the Nicaraguan Sandinista and black versions of James von Brunn: Frustrated”
Fixed it for ya!
“There is no sense in having an argument or a debate with people who practice such relativism.”
Relativism is SOP for commies. The Bolsheviks united with other political groups like the Menshiviks and slaughtered them when their usefulness was up. The ends justify the means with the Reds, period. I have a beef with the war, but I could never have common cause with the Reds in charge of IVAW because they see everyone outside of their political spectrum as “useful idiots” to be liquidated once they sieze power.
As time goes by, I come to realize that is the position I held while I was active with IVAW. The more I reflect, the more frustrated I get. That is why I take pleasure in watching IVAW fail so spectacularly.
Dammit, Raissi! I respect the hell out of you, but you should know IVAW isn’t about the leadership and what it does any more than the Army is about the leadership and what it does.
Also, some of us are breaking ourselves to try to fix it, you know.
Well, considering the chapter president in Atlanta is a member of the ISO, a lot of our “organizing” ended up being circle jerk panels with ISO. I don’t have a problem with working with diverse groups to accomplish shared goals, but the problem is that everything we did the ISO was involved in and put their stamp on. Marches, panels, everything. “Money for jobs and education, not for war and occupation,” and all these other bullshit slogans for workers and unions. We weren’t working together. I was working for them. And I think that holds true not just for Atlanta, but for the whole of IVAW.
“a lot of our “organizing” ended up being circle jerk panels with ISO. I don’t have a problem with working with diverse groups to accomplish shared goals, but the problem is that everything we did the ISO was involved in and put their stamp on.”
Reds will always use you to achive your goals and then kick you to the curb once your usefullness is gone.
Alright Kris, you got me you fucker. It’s too bad that I feel compelled to post here, on a blog whose authors who cannot make it through a single argument without the use of logical fallacy. Commenters, don’t think that statement necessarily applies to you. “Carl has openly stated that he only remains in IVAW to splinter it and to force out the non-revolutionary elements. How is this not divisive?” It doesn’t matter. A member of the ISO who was on the Board last year got the word “divisive” removed from the Code of Conduct (unless it’s been put back in since then, which I doubt) after I tried to use that clause against his boyfriends. “There is no sense in having an argument or a debate with people who practice such relativism…” The socialists in IVAW do not practice relativism. Relativism means acknowledging that values are internal, and therefore there is no single standard by which anything can be judged. I am far more relativist than any one of them. The socialists have a very strict set of values which they believe to be universal and which also seem to include treating the criticism of any one of them, valid or otherwise, as an “attack.” Mejia’s problem is that he is only capable of measuring anything by a single standard (in this case national liberation, with the implication that it’s done by force). He does not understand that the logical train of thought “if you support the American Revolution, you have to support the Iraqi Resistance” must be weighed against many other variables like, for example, how many people need to agree with you before you can realize major foreign policy shifts in a democratic republic. “Also, some of us are breaking ourselves to try to fix it, you know.” Yes, everyone knows. You will almost certainly fail. Further, your effort to fix IVAW at this stage in the game is like trying to raise the Titanic for the sake of saving the passengers. It’s really ridiculous that you continue to think there’s any difference left to be made.… Read more »
By relativism I mean that they hold everyone else to a certain standard, one to which they themselves do not feel inclined to follow. Perhaps relativism is the wrong term. Situational ethics may fit better. They certainly hold a set of values, but what is relativistic or situational about them are the arguments they use to repel “attacks.” Here is a quick story on that subject: You probably know the ISO member in the Atlanta chapter. He was on IVAW’s board the same time you were. When I left IVAW, I clearly stated my reasons. One grievance I had was that we were supposed to be holding an IVAW panel at a local college. When I got there, it was no longer an IVAW event. It was renamed “Resisting Empire” and moderated by the local ISO. It gave me a bad feeling, but since I was on the spot I went through and participated anyway. If you google my name, you’ll see me stuttering through my part of the panel because the entire thing had been flipped on me right before I was supposed to speak. Immediately after that event, I started getting calls about participating in straight up ISO panels about how the military targets poor kids in recruiting. Regardless of my personal opinions on that subject, I thought it was fucked up to have been deliberately misled into participating in an ISO panel and then be repeatedly solicited to participate in more, especially when those people knew I wasn’t down with the ISO’s politics. In response to those complaints that I made when I left IVAW, that former IVAW board member and current ISO member took a predictable posture: “I was attacked personally [even though he wasn’t then, and still has never been, called out by name], I am hurt, and now you need to make conciliatory overtures to me.” I was the one who was mislead and manipulated, but somehow I was the one who did him wrong and owed him an apology. This kind of stuff was puzzling to me until I read your posts on… Read more »
Some excellent comments here. After my arguments with Ward Reilly in the comments section of Jeff’s note on Facebook of his resignation from IVAW, it is gratifying to me to see such articulate validation of what have been my own experiences as well (coming from the perspective of an older vet who was organizing and protesting the war while you all were still in Iraq, and assisted and supported the work of IVAW from the beginning).
You all are expressing things that I have been grappling with for so long in my own life. Discussing it with Ward Reilly, what I get is that I’m nuts. And Camilo I’m in pain over, but I will stay on track.
In what you young folks here are expressing, I see clear vision, objectivity, and level-headedness, from Selena who is staying in for the fight, to the Iraq vet gentlemen who are lending her strength from the outside. It is a remarkable thing to observe and you all have my firm support and admiration.
The commentary by JuniorAG, who has never been involved with IVAW, drawing from history of how the Reds operate, he sounds so much like one of my young family members whose degree is in International Affairs. He is not exaggerating at all – it is fact-based information which is the same as I have heard during family conversations on this topic from a family member whose studies in college I know to have been impeccable. It has been through those conversations that I came to a clearer understanding of what I had been experiencing and observing, but still kept to myself for so long. So to see all this is an amazing thing to me.
I will continue to follow further developments as time allows (in between my work and family).
I respect the IVAW a lot, they do a lot of good work under terrible adversity, in an environment that often has a lot of misunderstanding and high emotions. I have been very inspired by Camilo Mejia from his speeches and writings in the past. I think his conscientious objection was authentic, and he is a visionary person. I also respect all the other folks here, with strong emotions and your efforts to reason things out. You’re all the best America’s got –yeah, even the ISO — because at least you care, and you’ll stand and argue your position. That is sharp contrast with politicians from county state and federal levels who conceal their values and beliefs, say opposite things to different people, and absolutely refuse to talk about principles (other than their party talking points, which are hairball of lies).
Carry on, moits. Throw a chair for me. (ducking and running)
Yeah, you better duck and run, Boyle. My tolerance level right now is at ground zero.
So Army Sergeant thinks the revolution in Nicaragua was a Sandinista coup?
Dude, Webb. I told you that if you were *not* an insane person campaigning for treason, you’d be able to see my Facebook page. I ignored your request, added you to my blocked list, and reported you to Facebook.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3498/3748981753_7b900a1cdd_o.png
This is the letter I got from IVAW:
Dear Carl Webb,
This letter is to serve as an official written reprimand that you are in violation of IVAW’s Code of Conduct for making statements that you want to splinter the organization and otherwise cause divisiveness (i.e., “I’m only trying to splinter IVAW so that the reactionary conservative elements can be forced out.”). The Board of Directors of IVAW asks that you cease and desist making any and all statements regarding fomenting division and splintering within the organization. Future statements along these lines will dealt with strongly and will likely result in the termination of your membership. IVAW is a diverse organization and we ask that all members respect that diversity and work together in positive ways to achieve our mission and goals as an organization.
Sincerely,
IVAW Board of Directors
Geoff Millard
Iraq Veterans Against the War
National Board Of Directors
Yep. AS thinks Sandinistas fucking suck, and so do Marxist revolutions. Just because Camilo’s dad decided to write their hymn about American aggressors doesn’t mean I feel any requirement to be nice. And I still have family down there, unlike you who probably have no personal investment whatsoever.