RESPONSE OF LOUISIANA - ACT 69
The Legislature of the State of Louisiana obviously considered the risk of exposure to
depleted uranium to be serious enough to mandate a test for returning veterans of
Louisiana. The State of Louisiana took the lead in the United States in responding to this
need of the soldiers who will be returning from Iraq. In its 2005 session the State Legislature
passed Act 69 which called for tests for depleted uranium in the veterans returning from
Iraq. Below is a copy of Act 69.
AN ACT
To enact R.S. 29:41, relative to exposure to depleted uranium, to provide for definitions, to
provide for screening of certain members of the armed forces of the United states; to
provide for reports on training, to prohibit state funding of the costs of the testing, and to
provide for related matters.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:
Section 1 R.S. 29:41 is hereby enacted to read as follows:
41. Exposure to depleted uranium
A. For the purpose of this Section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(1) “depleted uranium” means uranium containing less uranium-235 than the naturally
occurring distribution of uranium isotopes.
(2) “Eligible member” means a member who served in the Persian Gulf War, as defined in 38
USC 101, or in an area designated as a combat zone by the president of the United
States during Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.
(3) “Members of the armed forces” or “member” means a member of the armed forces of the
United States, including the Louisiana National Guard, who is a resident of this state.
(4) “Veteran” means a member who served as an eligible member
B. On or after October 1, 2005, any eligible member or veteran who returns or has returned to
this state after service in an area designated as a combat zone by the president of the United
States and who has been assigned a risk level 1 or 11 for depleted uranium by his branch or
service, or any other member or veteran who has reason to believe that he has been
exposed to depleted uranium during his service, shall have the right to a best practice
health screening test for exposure to depleted uranium using a bioassay procedure
involving sensitive methods capable of detecting depleted uranium at low levels and the
use of equipment with the capability to discriminate between different radioisotopes in
naturally occurring levels of uranium and the characteristic ratio and marker for depleted
uranium.
C. On or before October 1, 2005 , the adjutant general of the Louisiana National Guard shall
submit a report to the House Judiciary Committee and Senate Judiciary B Committee
on the scope and adequacy of training received by members of the armed forces on
detecting whether their service as eligible members is likely to entail, or to have
entailed, exposure to depleted uranium. The report shall include an assessment of
the feasibility and cost of adding predeployment training concerning potential
exposure to depleted uranium and other toxic chemical substances and the
precautions recommended under combat and noncombat conditions while in a combat
zone.
D. The expenditure or appropriation of state funds for the purpose of providing
testing pursuant to this Section is prohibited.
This act was passed unanimously by both houses of the Louisiana Legislature and signed
by Governor Blanco.
While Louisiana took the lead in passing this law, it was not the only state to pass such an
act. Since July 2005, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York have passed similar acts.
Vermont has passed a similar, though slightly different act. 20 states are considering such
an act. One purpose of the act is to put pressure on the Pentagon to follow its own
guidelines. This raises the first of several questions in relation to the act.
WHO WILL PAY FOR THE TESTS?
The act states definitively that the State of Louisiana will not pay. When I was first told of the
act I was told that the Veterans Administration would be responsible for paying for the tests.
A member of our group contacted the State office of the Veteran’s Administration and was
told that the State Legislature had no authority to mandate that any federal agency be
responsible for paying for the tests. Act 69 does not mandate that the Veteran’s
administration, or any other federal agency pay for the tests. Who will pay for the tests?
There are other issues in regard to members of the National Guard being sent full time into a
foreign war. The Governor is the commander of the National Guard. She has mandated that
the tests be given. The members of the Louisiana guard were operating outside of her
jurisdiction and so there is a legitimate reason to assume she has a right to mandate that the
federal government pay for tests which are aimed to protect the soldiers under her
command.
Secondly, the Iraq War has turned members of the Louisiana National Guard from soldiers
who make a commitment of 64 days a year into full time soldiers.. These soldiers undergo a
much greater risk in a foreign war that in the normal “guard” duty. This risk is one mandated
by the president of the United States not the Governor of Louisiana. Our governor has a
responsibility to make sure the USA adequately compensates men and women under her
command for any risks they undergo including testing for depleted uranium or any other
possible health problem incurred in their service of the USA.
Because of Hurricane Katrina Governor Blanco was forced to recall some members of the
Louisiana National Guard to Louisiana to assist in the cleanup and restoration of New
Orleans. Because of the horrible physical conditions in New Orleans resulting from the
chemical and fetal waste it would be so easy for the federal government to maintain that any
disruption to the bodies of members of the Louisiana National Guard resulted from
exposure to the situation in New Orleans rather than the situation in Iraq.
Again, it is imperative that the Governor of Louisiana insist on the federal government pay
for any test designed to protect the soldiers under her command.
For More information email bill crumley or whitney vilcan
To continue NEXT
To return to home page HOME
Rev. William Crumley CSC
3041 Chitimacha Trail
Charenton, La. 70523-0278
337-923-4281
RESPONSE OF LOUISIANA - ACT 69
The Legislature of the State of Louisiana obviously considered the risk of exposure to depleted uranium to
be serious enough to mandate a test for returning veterans of Louisiana. The State of Louisiana took the
lead in the United States in responding to this need of the soldiers who will be returning from Iraq. In its
2005 session the State Legislature passed Act 69 which called for tests for depleted uranium in the
veterans returning from Iraq. Below is a copy of Act 69.
AN ACT
To enact R.S. 29:41, relative to exposure to depleted uranium, to provide for definitions, to provide for
screening of certain members of the armed forces of the United states; to provide for reports on training,
to prohibit state funding of the costs of the testing, and to provide for related matters.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:
Section 1 R.S. 29:41 is hereby enacted to read as follows:
41. Exposure to depleted uranium
A. For the purpose of this Section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(1) “depleted uranium” means uranium containing less uranium-235 than the naturally occurring
distribution of uranium isotopes.
(2) “Eligible member” means a member who served in the Persian Gulf War, as defined in 38 USC 101, or in
an area designated as a combat zone by the president of the United States during Operation
Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.
(3) “Members of the armed forces” or “member” means a member of the armed forces of the United
States, including the Louisiana National Guard, who is a resident of this state.
(4) “Veteran” means a member who served as an eligible member
B. On or after October 1, 2005, any eligible member or veteran who returns or has returned to this state
after service in an area designated as a combat zone by the president of the United States and who has
been assigned a risk level 1 or 11 for depleted uranium by his branch or service, or any other member
or veteran who has reason to believe that he has been exposed to depleted uranium during his
service, shall have the right to a best practice health screening test for exposure to depleted
uranium using a bioassay procedure involving sensitive methods capable of detecting depleted uranium
at low levels and the use of equipment with the capability to discriminate between different
radioisotopes in naturally occurring levels of uranium and the characteristic ratio and marker for
depleted uranium.
C. On or before October 1, 2005 , the adjutant general of the Louisiana National Guard shall submit a
report to the House Judiciary Committee and Senate Judiciary B Committee on the scope and
adequacy of training received by members of the armed forces on detecting whether their service as
eligible members is likely to entail, or to have entailed, exposure to depleted uranium. The report
shall include an assessment of the feasibility and cost of adding predeployment training
concerning potential exposure to depleted uranium and other toxic chemical substances and the
precautions recommended under combat and noncombat conditions while in a combat zone.
D. The expenditure or appropriation of state funds for the purpose of providing testing pursuant to
this Section is prohibited.
This act was passed unanimously by both houses of the Louisiana Legislature and signed by Governor
Blanco.
While Louisiana took the lead in passing this law, it was not the only state to pass such an act. Since July
2005, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York have passed similar acts. Vermont has passed a similar,
though slightly different act. 20 states are considering such an act. One purpose of the act is to put
pressure on the Pentagon to follow its own guidelines. This raises the first of several questions in relation
to the act.
WHO WILL PAY FOR THE TESTS?
The act states definitively that the State of Louisiana will not pay. When I was first told of the act I was told
that the Veterans Administration would be responsible for paying for the tests. A member of our group
contacted the State office of the Veteran’s Administration and was told that the State Legislature had no
authority to mandate that any federal agency be responsible for paying for the tests. Act 69 does not
mandate that the Veteran’s administration, or any other federal agency pay for the tests. Who will pay for
the tests?
There are other issues in regard to members of the National Guard being sent full time into a foreign war.
The Governor is the commander of the National Guard. She has mandated that the tests be given. The
members of the Louisiana guard were operating outside of her jurisdiction and so there is a legitimate
reason to assume she has a right to mandate that the federal government pay for tests which are aimed to
protect the soldiers under her command.
Secondly, the Iraq War has turned members of the Louisiana National Guard from soldiers who make a
commitment of 64 days a year into full time soldiers.. These soldiers undergo a much greater risk in a
foreign war that in the normal “guard” duty. This risk is one mandated by the president of the United States
not the Governor of Louisiana. Our governor has a responsibility to make sure the USA adequately
compensates men and women under her command for any risks they undergo including testing for
depleted uranium or any other possible health problem incurred in their service of the USA.
Because of Hurricane Katrina Governor Blanco was forced to recall some members of the Louisiana
National Guard to Louisiana to assist in the cleanup and restoration of New Orleans. Because of the
horrible physical conditions in New Orleans resulting from the chemical and fetal waste it would be so easy
for the federal government to maintain that any disruption to the bodies of members of the Louisiana
National Guard resulted from exposure to the situation in New Orleans rather than the situation in Iraq.
Again, it is imperative that the Governor of Louisiana insist on the federal government pay for any test
designed to protect the soldiers under her command.
For More information email bill crumley or whitney vilcan
To continue U.N. Paper
To return to home page home
Rev. William Crumley CSC
3041 Chitimacha Trail
Charenton, La. 70523-0278
337-923-4281
t 69
U. N. Paper
hoarding D.U.
Tape on D.U.
Bank head captured
Conscientious
Objection
moret
Tower of Babel
SOLUTIONS
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION
Two of us are doing a series in local high schools on conscientious objection, the right to resist being
forced into a situation where you may be required to kill or seriously harm another person. One of the
questions of the youngsters we taught was "Does conscientious objection apply to things other than
war? The answer is "Yes!" But when we speak of conscientious objection it is usually in terms of
resistance to the draft.
We will use as the basis of this page some of the more pertinent questions posed by the young people
in our sessions. However we will say a few things in general about conscientious objection first.
1. A quote from the words of Pope John Paul 2 to young people:
"On my knees I beg you to turn away from the paths of violence ... I say to you, with all the love I have for
you, with all the trust I have in young people: do not listen to voices which speak the language of
hatred, revenge, retaliation. Do not follow any leaders who train you in the way of inflicting death. ... Give
yourself to the service of life, not the work of death. Violence is the enemy of justice. Only peace can
lead the way to true justice."
2. At present we do not have a draft and so no one is coerced into the military. However, before you sign
up for the draft there are a few things to consider. The benefits you are offered, especially education,
health insurance and even financial benefits sound great but you have to live to spend them. As far as
the health benefits, investigate the Government's track record not their claims. At least 250,000 veterans
are unable to work. Most of them are being denied health benefits because the Government maintains
that the physical problems the have are really only psychological problems resulting from the trauma of
war. This is not true. Even if they are the Government does acknowledge them as the reslt of their
experience in war. But refuses to accept financial responsibility for their placing these veterans in such
a damaging situation.
3. The teaching on conscientious objection is clear. Our conscientious objection does not excuse us
from the responsibility of service. It simply states that the Government has a responsibility to provide us
with an alternative form of service to the military draft.
4. The United Nations and many nations recognize the right of an individual to the conscientious
objector status. The United States at present does not. There is no assurance you will not be
prosecuted if you refuse to sign up for the draft if the draft is reinstated.
5. In the event of a draft being reinstated it is recommended that you not register. It is easier to prove
your legitimacy as a conscientious objector if you refuse to register than if you register and then try to
prove you are a conscientious objector. Some persons write on the draft form "I am a conscientious
objector." If you do that, keep a copy of your draft form. It is even more difficult to be recognized as a
conscientious objector before entering the military than after you enter.
SOME OF THE YOUNG PEOPLE'S QUESTIONS
IF I THINK WAR IS WRONG, AND THERE IS A DRAFT, DO I HAVE TO GO?
No. That is the whole sense of conscientious objection. You are not forced to do anything against your
own conscience. As stated above this does not excuse you from responsibility of service. It does not
mean you status will be recognized. The Catechism of he Catholic Church says this:
"Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to
bear arms; these are nonetheless required to serve the human community in some other way. Op. cit.
#2311
WHY MUST YOU BE FORCED AGAINST YOUR WILL TO FIGHT? ISN'T THAT A CRIME IN
ITSELF? DOING SOMETHING BY FORCE?
Yes it is! Your question says it well. That is why it is important to express conscientious
objection status. We are resisting not some possible foreign oppressor but our own
Government who is forcing us into something we know is wrong.
DOES GOD LOOK ON US AS SINNING WHEN WE KILL SOMEBODY IN WAR?
Yes! Thou shalt not kill does not say "this edict does not apply in war." The problem is not
how God looks at us. God ALWAYS forgives. We are the one who must live with the
consequences of our own actions. Even though expressing our thoughts on
conscientious objection may lead to serious personal consequences, there is nothing
more serious than a guilty conscience. No court of law, no judge, no religious leader can
free us from our sense of personal guilt. As a priest and a confessor I know that is THE
most serious problem people face.
WOULD YOU GO TO WAR IF YOU DIDN'T AGREE WITH IT BUT WANTED TO DEFEND YOUR COUNTRY?
Your question expresses the dilemma many younger persons face: how do I measure my patriotic duty,
my desire to protest myself, my family, my friends against my own innate sense that war is wrong.
Maybe these few pointers can help.
1. Make sure your actions are really protecting your country, that your country really IS at risk. We have
seen in recent wars that the reason(s) given for the war (e.g. weapons of mass destruction supposedly
owned by Saddam Hussein) do not exist. So why did we fight this war?
2. If there is a genuine risk is there any other alternative to war? Has proper negotiation been used?
Could the matter be submitted to an international body of arbitration?
3. Have you looked into the profit motive? Who will make money off of this war? How much of the data
being supplied comes from persons or corporations with vested economic interests?
4. Have you talked to your parents? your pastors or other religious leaders?
5. Would you be as ready to "defend" your country if you knew you would die in the process? There is
a chance you might die!
HOW CAN YOU USE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO GET CLOSER TO GOD?
That is an interesting question. We would hope that getting closer to God would be at least one of the
goals of our life. Conscientious objection is the result of a process of reflection and the formation of
conscience. We don't just wake up one morning and say "I am a conscientious objector." or "It would
be nice to be a conscientious objector."
We have to reflect on what war is. What are the consequences of war? Why would I want to harm or kill
someone I don't even know? someone from another land? I don't know anything about the person I
may kill or maim. (S)he may be a mother or a father. We might be good friends if we were able to sit
down and talk to one another.
War is not like a baseball game or a basketball game. Someone wins and someone loses. Nobody wins
a war. People die in a war. This disrupts families and other human relationships. For every one who
dies dozens or perhaps even hundreds of others have their lives disrupted. Wars destroy property,
sometimes large areas of farmland, living area. Thousands, often millions of lives are affected. What
good could have been done by the ones killed? What good could have been done with the money
spent on war and the reconstruction from war?
Whenever we ask these and similar questions we are assessing our life and what it means, our
responsibility to ourselves, our families, the world as a whole, how we relate to God and the world God
created. This in itself should draw us closer to God.
WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION?
I am not sure what the intent of this question is. Does conscientious objection apply to things other
than war and the draft? Yes! We need to apply the principles of conscientious objection to every
decision we make in our lives. Can we abuse conscientious objection? Only we use its principles to get
ourselves out of war or an unpleasant situation. We can abuse any principle if we use it dishonestly.
One or more persons' abuse of a principle does not invalidate the principle.
ONCE YOU'RE IN WAR, IF YOU THINK IT'S WRONG, CAN YOU GET OUT OF IT?
In the United States today it is very hard to be recognized as a conscientious objector once you have
become part of the military. Some persons who have attempted to do so have ended up in jail. But today
there is not a draft. It is assumed that whoever joins the military agrees with its principles and policies. It
is important to express your conscientious objection BEFORE you enter the military.
DOES CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION APPLY TO ALL RELIGIONS?
Yes! Conscientious objection is not a matter of which church you belong to or if you even belong to a
church. Conscientious objection is a right recognized by the United Nations and many of the member
nations of the UN. It is simply the recognition that a human being has the right to decide whether (s)he
will or will not choose to be placed into a situation in which (s)he may be forced to kill.
WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU CAN'T DECIDE WHAT TO DO?
Seek advice. Pray. Ask what you might tell your child if you were the parent and your child were in your
situation. Unless there is a draft and you are required to register, you do not have to do anything. Do
not sign up for the military if you have any doubts.
CAN THE NATION OVERRULE THE CHURCH AND FORCE PEOPLE WHO OBJECT TO WAR
TO FIGHT ANYWAY?
The nation and the church are two separate entities. From the time of established churches there has
been a conflict between the church and the state. Both seek the peoples' allegiance and support even
though their directions are separate. The state deals with people's material needs. The church with
people's spiritual needs. War deals with both spiritual and material needs.
War involves the bodies of soldiers and so the state rules over them. War also involves the spirits of
soldiers. The church teaches things like conscientious objection because our spirits are at risk when
we are at war. The church is speaking out in order to help our spirits be at rest. But the state can still
arrest our bodies which in turn will disrupt our spirits. So, the church is at a disadvantage in its struggle
with the state. But the state cannot force anyone unless the draft becomes obligatory by law.
COULD SOMEONE'S CONSCIENCE BE A BAD ONE? IF SO DOES THIS IDEA STILL EXIST?
Yes. A person's conscience can be badly formed. (S)he may be rationalizing to avoid doing something
{s}he considers unpleasant. That may happen in regard to any moral question. The poor formation of an
individual's or even many individuals' conscience does not invalidate the principle that we are to follow
our conscience.
IF SOMETHING IS MORALLY WRONG, BUT YOUR CONSCIENCE TELLS YOU TO DO IT,
CAN YOU BE BLAMED?
This is a tricky question. Do you KNOW it is morally wrong? If you know it is morally wrong why would
you want to do it? If it is wrong but its opposite is also wrong you maybe in a position of having to
choose the lesser of two evils. There are no clear rules regarding this kind of choice. This would be a
value judgment you need to make. A lot of our moral decisions fall into this category.
Then there is the question of "blame". Blame is a legal phenomenon not a moral one. Our conscience
directs our moral behavior. We can act in complete harmony with our moral conscience and still find we
are blamed and perhaps found guilty in a court of law and subject to some form of punishment
IS IT WRONG TO SUPPORT THE WAR?
You need to give thought to WHY you support the war. Do you ask if the war is just? There are certain
criteria for a war to be considered "just". 1. The cause must be just. 2. The war must be declared by a
legitimate authority. 3. It must be waged as a last resort. Every form of arbitration and mediation must
have been tried and failed. 4. There must be a reasonable chance of the war being successful. A war is
considered successful if it brings about peace. 5. Deadly force must not be used against civilians.
Wars of the last 40 to 50 years fail to meet the criteria of just wars in at least 2 major ways. A) They are
not waged with a reasonable chance of success. Success means there is a reasonable chance of peace
resulting from the war. Wars today simply prompt another war in their wake. B) Deadly force is
constantly used against civilians.
HOW LONG HAS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION BEEN AROUND?
A long time. There are references to it in the Bible. Many of the Old Testament prophets lived a form of
conscientious objection. They lived out a faith and a morality that was contrary to the commonly
accepted morality and faith of their day.
WHAT IS A PACIFIST AND WHAT DOES WAR HAVE TO DO WITH A PACIFIST?
A pacifist is one who is committed to living and working to promote peace. War and violence is
something a pacifist will completely avoid.
IS IT WRONG TO BE A PACIFIST JUST TO NOT BE IN THE DRAFT?
YOU REALLY DON'T MIND VIOLENCE, YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO GO TO WAR?
If you don't mind violence then you are not a pacifist. A pacifist is a person who is committed to resist
war and violence. There is a distinction between one who is a pacifist and one who is anti war. You can
be anti war and not necessarily a pacifist you just don't want war. Your anti war sentiments can take on
two forms. You can be against war period or you are simply against YOU going to war. You need to
decide who you are a full scale pacifist, a full fledged anti war person or simply one who does not want
to go to war.
WOULD IT BE A SIN TO LIE AND SAY YOU ARE PACIFIST SO YOU WOULDN'T DIE?
It is not a sin to try and protect yourself. Read the question and answer immediately above.
IS IT WRONG TO HOLD SOMEONE HOSTAGE DURING WAR?
Are you asking about being held hostage or being a prisoner of war? A hostage is one who has been
kidnapped and is being held for some type of ransom (money, bargaining for something you want, or
some other form of gain). It is wrong at any time (war or peace) to use others by force in order to further
your own ends.
A prisoner of war is one (usually a member of the enemy group) who is captured in the course of the
war. At times there is no other option but to keep the person(s) as prisoners. There are certain
regulations which guide this procedure. The prisoners must be adequately fed and housed. They may
not be subjected to any form of violence or mistreatment.
IS IT WRONG TO BLOW UP A CITY DURING WAR JUST TO GET RID OF THE PEOPLE?
Yes. Blowing up a city simply to get rid of the people would violate the requirements necessary to make
a war just. The entire war would be rendered unjust by such actions
IS GOING TO WAR AND KILLING SOMEONE A MORTAL SIN?
Recall the criteria for mortal sin: it must be something serious. You must know it serious. It must be
intentional. You must want to do it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also says of mortal sin:
"although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to
the justice and mercy of God." op. cit. sec. 1861
To continue moret
To return to the main page main page
To email bill crumley or whitney vilcan
Rev. William Crumley CSC
3041 Chitimacha Trail
Charenton, La. 70523-0278
337-923-4281
This file is not intended to be viewed directly using a web browser. To create a viewable file, use the Preview in
Browser or Publish to Yahoo! Web Hosting commands from within Yahoo! SiteBuilder.
The Legislature of the State of Louisiana obviously considered the risk of exposure to
depleted uranium to be serious enough to mandate a test for returning veterans of
Louisiana. The State of Louisiana took the lead in the United States in responding to this
need of the soldiers who will be returning from Iraq. In its 2005 session the State Legislature
passed Act 69 which called for tests for depleted uranium in the veterans returning from
Iraq. Below is a copy of Act 69.
AN ACT
To enact R.S. 29:41, relative to exposure to depleted uranium, to provide for definitions, to
provide for screening of certain members of the armed forces of the United states; to
provide for reports on training, to prohibit state funding of the costs of the testing, and to
provide for related matters.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:
Section 1 R.S. 29:41 is hereby enacted to read as follows:
41. Exposure to depleted uranium
A. For the purpose of this Section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(1) “depleted uranium” means uranium containing less uranium-235 than the naturally
occurring distribution of uranium isotopes.
(2) “Eligible member” means a member who served in the Persian Gulf War, as defined in 38
USC 101, or in an area designated as a combat zone by the president of the United
States during Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.
(3) “Members of the armed forces” or “member” means a member of the armed forces of the
United States, including the Louisiana National Guard, who is a resident of this state.
(4) “Veteran” means a member who served as an eligible member
B. On or after October 1, 2005, any eligible member or veteran who returns or has returned to
this state after service in an area designated as a combat zone by the president of the United
States and who has been assigned a risk level 1 or 11 for depleted uranium by his branch or
service, or any other member or veteran who has reason to believe that he has been
exposed to depleted uranium during his service, shall have the right to a best practice
health screening test for exposure to depleted uranium using a bioassay procedure
involving sensitive methods capable of detecting depleted uranium at low levels and the
use of equipment with the capability to discriminate between different radioisotopes in
naturally occurring levels of uranium and the characteristic ratio and marker for depleted
uranium.
C. On or before October 1, 2005 , the adjutant general of the Louisiana National Guard shall
submit a report to the House Judiciary Committee and Senate Judiciary B Committee
on the scope and adequacy of training received by members of the armed forces on
detecting whether their service as eligible members is likely to entail, or to have
entailed, exposure to depleted uranium. The report shall include an assessment of
the feasibility and cost of adding predeployment training concerning potential
exposure to depleted uranium and other toxic chemical substances and the
precautions recommended under combat and noncombat conditions while in a combat
zone.
D. The expenditure or appropriation of state funds for the purpose of providing
testing pursuant to this Section is prohibited.
This act was passed unanimously by both houses of the Louisiana Legislature and signed
by Governor Blanco.
While Louisiana took the lead in passing this law, it was not the only state to pass such an
act. Since July 2005, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York have passed similar acts.
Vermont has passed a similar, though slightly different act. 20 states are considering such
an act. One purpose of the act is to put pressure on the Pentagon to follow its own
guidelines. This raises the first of several questions in relation to the act.
WHO WILL PAY FOR THE TESTS?
The act states definitively that the State of Louisiana will not pay. When I was first told of the
act I was told that the Veterans Administration would be responsible for paying for the tests.
A member of our group contacted the State office of the Veteran’s Administration and was
told that the State Legislature had no authority to mandate that any federal agency be
responsible for paying for the tests. Act 69 does not mandate that the Veteran’s
administration, or any other federal agency pay for the tests. Who will pay for the tests?
There are other issues in regard to members of the National Guard being sent full time into a
foreign war. The Governor is the commander of the National Guard. She has mandated that
the tests be given. The members of the Louisiana guard were operating outside of her
jurisdiction and so there is a legitimate reason to assume she has a right to mandate that the
federal government pay for tests which are aimed to protect the soldiers under her
command.
Secondly, the Iraq War has turned members of the Louisiana National Guard from soldiers
who make a commitment of 64 days a year into full time soldiers.. These soldiers undergo a
much greater risk in a foreign war that in the normal “guard” duty. This risk is one mandated
by the president of the United States not the Governor of Louisiana. Our governor has a
responsibility to make sure the USA adequately compensates men and women under her
command for any risks they undergo including testing for depleted uranium or any other
possible health problem incurred in their service of the USA.
Because of Hurricane Katrina Governor Blanco was forced to recall some members of the
Louisiana National Guard to Louisiana to assist in the cleanup and restoration of New
Orleans. Because of the horrible physical conditions in New Orleans resulting from the
chemical and fetal waste it would be so easy for the federal government to maintain that any
disruption to the bodies of members of the Louisiana National Guard resulted from
exposure to the situation in New Orleans rather than the situation in Iraq.
Again, it is imperative that the Governor of Louisiana insist on the federal government pay
for any test designed to protect the soldiers under her command.
For More information email bill crumley or whitney vilcan
To continue NEXT
To return to home page HOME
Rev. William Crumley CSC
3041 Chitimacha Trail
Charenton, La. 70523-0278
337-923-4281
RESPONSE OF LOUISIANA - ACT 69
The Legislature of the State of Louisiana obviously considered the risk of exposure to depleted uranium to
be serious enough to mandate a test for returning veterans of Louisiana. The State of Louisiana took the
lead in the United States in responding to this need of the soldiers who will be returning from Iraq. In its
2005 session the State Legislature passed Act 69 which called for tests for depleted uranium in the
veterans returning from Iraq. Below is a copy of Act 69.
AN ACT
To enact R.S. 29:41, relative to exposure to depleted uranium, to provide for definitions, to provide for
screening of certain members of the armed forces of the United states; to provide for reports on training,
to prohibit state funding of the costs of the testing, and to provide for related matters.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:
Section 1 R.S. 29:41 is hereby enacted to read as follows:
41. Exposure to depleted uranium
A. For the purpose of this Section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(1) “depleted uranium” means uranium containing less uranium-235 than the naturally occurring
distribution of uranium isotopes.
(2) “Eligible member” means a member who served in the Persian Gulf War, as defined in 38 USC 101, or in
an area designated as a combat zone by the president of the United States during Operation
Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.
(3) “Members of the armed forces” or “member” means a member of the armed forces of the United
States, including the Louisiana National Guard, who is a resident of this state.
(4) “Veteran” means a member who served as an eligible member
B. On or after October 1, 2005, any eligible member or veteran who returns or has returned to this state
after service in an area designated as a combat zone by the president of the United States and who has
been assigned a risk level 1 or 11 for depleted uranium by his branch or service, or any other member
or veteran who has reason to believe that he has been exposed to depleted uranium during his
service, shall have the right to a best practice health screening test for exposure to depleted
uranium using a bioassay procedure involving sensitive methods capable of detecting depleted uranium
at low levels and the use of equipment with the capability to discriminate between different
radioisotopes in naturally occurring levels of uranium and the characteristic ratio and marker for
depleted uranium.
C. On or before October 1, 2005 , the adjutant general of the Louisiana National Guard shall submit a
report to the House Judiciary Committee and Senate Judiciary B Committee on the scope and
adequacy of training received by members of the armed forces on detecting whether their service as
eligible members is likely to entail, or to have entailed, exposure to depleted uranium. The report
shall include an assessment of the feasibility and cost of adding predeployment training
concerning potential exposure to depleted uranium and other toxic chemical substances and the
precautions recommended under combat and noncombat conditions while in a combat zone.
D. The expenditure or appropriation of state funds for the purpose of providing testing pursuant to
this Section is prohibited.
This act was passed unanimously by both houses of the Louisiana Legislature and signed by Governor
Blanco.
While Louisiana took the lead in passing this law, it was not the only state to pass such an act. Since July
2005, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York have passed similar acts. Vermont has passed a similar,
though slightly different act. 20 states are considering such an act. One purpose of the act is to put
pressure on the Pentagon to follow its own guidelines. This raises the first of several questions in relation
to the act.
WHO WILL PAY FOR THE TESTS?
The act states definitively that the State of Louisiana will not pay. When I was first told of the act I was told
that the Veterans Administration would be responsible for paying for the tests. A member of our group
contacted the State office of the Veteran’s Administration and was told that the State Legislature had no
authority to mandate that any federal agency be responsible for paying for the tests. Act 69 does not
mandate that the Veteran’s administration, or any other federal agency pay for the tests. Who will pay for
the tests?
There are other issues in regard to members of the National Guard being sent full time into a foreign war.
The Governor is the commander of the National Guard. She has mandated that the tests be given. The
members of the Louisiana guard were operating outside of her jurisdiction and so there is a legitimate
reason to assume she has a right to mandate that the federal government pay for tests which are aimed to
protect the soldiers under her command.
Secondly, the Iraq War has turned members of the Louisiana National Guard from soldiers who make a
commitment of 64 days a year into full time soldiers.. These soldiers undergo a much greater risk in a
foreign war that in the normal “guard” duty. This risk is one mandated by the president of the United States
not the Governor of Louisiana. Our governor has a responsibility to make sure the USA adequately
compensates men and women under her command for any risks they undergo including testing for
depleted uranium or any other possible health problem incurred in their service of the USA.
Because of Hurricane Katrina Governor Blanco was forced to recall some members of the Louisiana
National Guard to Louisiana to assist in the cleanup and restoration of New Orleans. Because of the
horrible physical conditions in New Orleans resulting from the chemical and fetal waste it would be so easy
for the federal government to maintain that any disruption to the bodies of members of the Louisiana
National Guard resulted from exposure to the situation in New Orleans rather than the situation in Iraq.
Again, it is imperative that the Governor of Louisiana insist on the federal government pay for any test
designed to protect the soldiers under her command.
For More information email bill crumley or whitney vilcan
To continue U.N. Paper
To return to home page home
Rev. William Crumley CSC
3041 Chitimacha Trail
Charenton, La. 70523-0278
337-923-4281
t 69
U. N. Paper
hoarding D.U.
Tape on D.U.
Bank head captured
Conscientious
Objection
moret
Tower of Babel
SOLUTIONS
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION
Two of us are doing a series in local high schools on conscientious objection, the right to resist being
forced into a situation where you may be required to kill or seriously harm another person. One of the
questions of the youngsters we taught was "Does conscientious objection apply to things other than
war? The answer is "Yes!" But when we speak of conscientious objection it is usually in terms of
resistance to the draft.
We will use as the basis of this page some of the more pertinent questions posed by the young people
in our sessions. However we will say a few things in general about conscientious objection first.
1. A quote from the words of Pope John Paul 2 to young people:
"On my knees I beg you to turn away from the paths of violence ... I say to you, with all the love I have for
you, with all the trust I have in young people: do not listen to voices which speak the language of
hatred, revenge, retaliation. Do not follow any leaders who train you in the way of inflicting death. ... Give
yourself to the service of life, not the work of death. Violence is the enemy of justice. Only peace can
lead the way to true justice."
2. At present we do not have a draft and so no one is coerced into the military. However, before you sign
up for the draft there are a few things to consider. The benefits you are offered, especially education,
health insurance and even financial benefits sound great but you have to live to spend them. As far as
the health benefits, investigate the Government's track record not their claims. At least 250,000 veterans
are unable to work. Most of them are being denied health benefits because the Government maintains
that the physical problems the have are really only psychological problems resulting from the trauma of
war. This is not true. Even if they are the Government does acknowledge them as the reslt of their
experience in war. But refuses to accept financial responsibility for their placing these veterans in such
a damaging situation.
3. The teaching on conscientious objection is clear. Our conscientious objection does not excuse us
from the responsibility of service. It simply states that the Government has a responsibility to provide us
with an alternative form of service to the military draft.
4. The United Nations and many nations recognize the right of an individual to the conscientious
objector status. The United States at present does not. There is no assurance you will not be
prosecuted if you refuse to sign up for the draft if the draft is reinstated.
5. In the event of a draft being reinstated it is recommended that you not register. It is easier to prove
your legitimacy as a conscientious objector if you refuse to register than if you register and then try to
prove you are a conscientious objector. Some persons write on the draft form "I am a conscientious
objector." If you do that, keep a copy of your draft form. It is even more difficult to be recognized as a
conscientious objector before entering the military than after you enter.
SOME OF THE YOUNG PEOPLE'S QUESTIONS
IF I THINK WAR IS WRONG, AND THERE IS A DRAFT, DO I HAVE TO GO?
No. That is the whole sense of conscientious objection. You are not forced to do anything against your
own conscience. As stated above this does not excuse you from responsibility of service. It does not
mean you status will be recognized. The Catechism of he Catholic Church says this:
"Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to
bear arms; these are nonetheless required to serve the human community in some other way. Op. cit.
#2311
WHY MUST YOU BE FORCED AGAINST YOUR WILL TO FIGHT? ISN'T THAT A CRIME IN
ITSELF? DOING SOMETHING BY FORCE?
Yes it is! Your question says it well. That is why it is important to express conscientious
objection status. We are resisting not some possible foreign oppressor but our own
Government who is forcing us into something we know is wrong.
DOES GOD LOOK ON US AS SINNING WHEN WE KILL SOMEBODY IN WAR?
Yes! Thou shalt not kill does not say "this edict does not apply in war." The problem is not
how God looks at us. God ALWAYS forgives. We are the one who must live with the
consequences of our own actions. Even though expressing our thoughts on
conscientious objection may lead to serious personal consequences, there is nothing
more serious than a guilty conscience. No court of law, no judge, no religious leader can
free us from our sense of personal guilt. As a priest and a confessor I know that is THE
most serious problem people face.
WOULD YOU GO TO WAR IF YOU DIDN'T AGREE WITH IT BUT WANTED TO DEFEND YOUR COUNTRY?
Your question expresses the dilemma many younger persons face: how do I measure my patriotic duty,
my desire to protest myself, my family, my friends against my own innate sense that war is wrong.
Maybe these few pointers can help.
1. Make sure your actions are really protecting your country, that your country really IS at risk. We have
seen in recent wars that the reason(s) given for the war (e.g. weapons of mass destruction supposedly
owned by Saddam Hussein) do not exist. So why did we fight this war?
2. If there is a genuine risk is there any other alternative to war? Has proper negotiation been used?
Could the matter be submitted to an international body of arbitration?
3. Have you looked into the profit motive? Who will make money off of this war? How much of the data
being supplied comes from persons or corporations with vested economic interests?
4. Have you talked to your parents? your pastors or other religious leaders?
5. Would you be as ready to "defend" your country if you knew you would die in the process? There is
a chance you might die!
HOW CAN YOU USE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO GET CLOSER TO GOD?
That is an interesting question. We would hope that getting closer to God would be at least one of the
goals of our life. Conscientious objection is the result of a process of reflection and the formation of
conscience. We don't just wake up one morning and say "I am a conscientious objector." or "It would
be nice to be a conscientious objector."
We have to reflect on what war is. What are the consequences of war? Why would I want to harm or kill
someone I don't even know? someone from another land? I don't know anything about the person I
may kill or maim. (S)he may be a mother or a father. We might be good friends if we were able to sit
down and talk to one another.
War is not like a baseball game or a basketball game. Someone wins and someone loses. Nobody wins
a war. People die in a war. This disrupts families and other human relationships. For every one who
dies dozens or perhaps even hundreds of others have their lives disrupted. Wars destroy property,
sometimes large areas of farmland, living area. Thousands, often millions of lives are affected. What
good could have been done by the ones killed? What good could have been done with the money
spent on war and the reconstruction from war?
Whenever we ask these and similar questions we are assessing our life and what it means, our
responsibility to ourselves, our families, the world as a whole, how we relate to God and the world God
created. This in itself should draw us closer to God.
WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION?
I am not sure what the intent of this question is. Does conscientious objection apply to things other
than war and the draft? Yes! We need to apply the principles of conscientious objection to every
decision we make in our lives. Can we abuse conscientious objection? Only we use its principles to get
ourselves out of war or an unpleasant situation. We can abuse any principle if we use it dishonestly.
One or more persons' abuse of a principle does not invalidate the principle.
ONCE YOU'RE IN WAR, IF YOU THINK IT'S WRONG, CAN YOU GET OUT OF IT?
In the United States today it is very hard to be recognized as a conscientious objector once you have
become part of the military. Some persons who have attempted to do so have ended up in jail. But today
there is not a draft. It is assumed that whoever joins the military agrees with its principles and policies. It
is important to express your conscientious objection BEFORE you enter the military.
DOES CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION APPLY TO ALL RELIGIONS?
Yes! Conscientious objection is not a matter of which church you belong to or if you even belong to a
church. Conscientious objection is a right recognized by the United Nations and many of the member
nations of the UN. It is simply the recognition that a human being has the right to decide whether (s)he
will or will not choose to be placed into a situation in which (s)he may be forced to kill.
WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU CAN'T DECIDE WHAT TO DO?
Seek advice. Pray. Ask what you might tell your child if you were the parent and your child were in your
situation. Unless there is a draft and you are required to register, you do not have to do anything. Do
not sign up for the military if you have any doubts.
CAN THE NATION OVERRULE THE CHURCH AND FORCE PEOPLE WHO OBJECT TO WAR
TO FIGHT ANYWAY?
The nation and the church are two separate entities. From the time of established churches there has
been a conflict between the church and the state. Both seek the peoples' allegiance and support even
though their directions are separate. The state deals with people's material needs. The church with
people's spiritual needs. War deals with both spiritual and material needs.
War involves the bodies of soldiers and so the state rules over them. War also involves the spirits of
soldiers. The church teaches things like conscientious objection because our spirits are at risk when
we are at war. The church is speaking out in order to help our spirits be at rest. But the state can still
arrest our bodies which in turn will disrupt our spirits. So, the church is at a disadvantage in its struggle
with the state. But the state cannot force anyone unless the draft becomes obligatory by law.
COULD SOMEONE'S CONSCIENCE BE A BAD ONE? IF SO DOES THIS IDEA STILL EXIST?
Yes. A person's conscience can be badly formed. (S)he may be rationalizing to avoid doing something
{s}he considers unpleasant. That may happen in regard to any moral question. The poor formation of an
individual's or even many individuals' conscience does not invalidate the principle that we are to follow
our conscience.
IF SOMETHING IS MORALLY WRONG, BUT YOUR CONSCIENCE TELLS YOU TO DO IT,
CAN YOU BE BLAMED?
This is a tricky question. Do you KNOW it is morally wrong? If you know it is morally wrong why would
you want to do it? If it is wrong but its opposite is also wrong you maybe in a position of having to
choose the lesser of two evils. There are no clear rules regarding this kind of choice. This would be a
value judgment you need to make. A lot of our moral decisions fall into this category.
Then there is the question of "blame". Blame is a legal phenomenon not a moral one. Our conscience
directs our moral behavior. We can act in complete harmony with our moral conscience and still find we
are blamed and perhaps found guilty in a court of law and subject to some form of punishment
IS IT WRONG TO SUPPORT THE WAR?
You need to give thought to WHY you support the war. Do you ask if the war is just? There are certain
criteria for a war to be considered "just". 1. The cause must be just. 2. The war must be declared by a
legitimate authority. 3. It must be waged as a last resort. Every form of arbitration and mediation must
have been tried and failed. 4. There must be a reasonable chance of the war being successful. A war is
considered successful if it brings about peace. 5. Deadly force must not be used against civilians.
Wars of the last 40 to 50 years fail to meet the criteria of just wars in at least 2 major ways. A) They are
not waged with a reasonable chance of success. Success means there is a reasonable chance of peace
resulting from the war. Wars today simply prompt another war in their wake. B) Deadly force is
constantly used against civilians.
HOW LONG HAS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION BEEN AROUND?
A long time. There are references to it in the Bible. Many of the Old Testament prophets lived a form of
conscientious objection. They lived out a faith and a morality that was contrary to the commonly
accepted morality and faith of their day.
WHAT IS A PACIFIST AND WHAT DOES WAR HAVE TO DO WITH A PACIFIST?
A pacifist is one who is committed to living and working to promote peace. War and violence is
something a pacifist will completely avoid.
IS IT WRONG TO BE A PACIFIST JUST TO NOT BE IN THE DRAFT?
YOU REALLY DON'T MIND VIOLENCE, YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO GO TO WAR?
If you don't mind violence then you are not a pacifist. A pacifist is a person who is committed to resist
war and violence. There is a distinction between one who is a pacifist and one who is anti war. You can
be anti war and not necessarily a pacifist you just don't want war. Your anti war sentiments can take on
two forms. You can be against war period or you are simply against YOU going to war. You need to
decide who you are a full scale pacifist, a full fledged anti war person or simply one who does not want
to go to war.
WOULD IT BE A SIN TO LIE AND SAY YOU ARE PACIFIST SO YOU WOULDN'T DIE?
It is not a sin to try and protect yourself. Read the question and answer immediately above.
IS IT WRONG TO HOLD SOMEONE HOSTAGE DURING WAR?
Are you asking about being held hostage or being a prisoner of war? A hostage is one who has been
kidnapped and is being held for some type of ransom (money, bargaining for something you want, or
some other form of gain). It is wrong at any time (war or peace) to use others by force in order to further
your own ends.
A prisoner of war is one (usually a member of the enemy group) who is captured in the course of the
war. At times there is no other option but to keep the person(s) as prisoners. There are certain
regulations which guide this procedure. The prisoners must be adequately fed and housed. They may
not be subjected to any form of violence or mistreatment.
IS IT WRONG TO BLOW UP A CITY DURING WAR JUST TO GET RID OF THE PEOPLE?
Yes. Blowing up a city simply to get rid of the people would violate the requirements necessary to make
a war just. The entire war would be rendered unjust by such actions
IS GOING TO WAR AND KILLING SOMEONE A MORTAL SIN?
Recall the criteria for mortal sin: it must be something serious. You must know it serious. It must be
intentional. You must want to do it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also says of mortal sin:
"although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to
the justice and mercy of God." op. cit. sec. 1861
To continue moret
To return to the main page main page
To email bill crumley or whitney vilcan
Rev. William Crumley CSC
3041 Chitimacha Trail
Charenton, La. 70523-0278
337-923-4281
This file is not intended to be viewed directly using a web browser. To create a viewable file, use the Preview in
Browser or Publish to Yahoo! Web Hosting commands from within Yahoo! SiteBuilder.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |