WELCOME to the page that will be "the exception to the rule"!

It has been the 'Rule' of this site to "Keep it light" while trying to "Shed some LIGHT" on some pretty "HEAVY STUFF!" and asking you, our visitors, to THINK about trying to HELP those who have fallen victim to Military Injustices, before you were 'sucked' into the mire. In 'light' of the 'fact' that, on March 19, 2003, the United States of America attacked Iraq...it's impossible to do that!

While we hope the welcome is WARM...it's time to face some of the COLD facts! So while we work on presentation, you might want to do a Governmental 'Reality Check'! Try starting with consideration of the fact that on Monday, March 17, 2003, the world (or at least this country) was greeted with the media 'News' that, by the end of the day, we would/could be at WAR! Now, ask yourself...How 'Low does it Go' when a citizen of the United States of America can justifiably register a 'personal' PROTEST by sending a request for help to the UK?

On March 17, 2003, the following E-mail message was sent to Mr. Kevin McNamara, a Member of Parliament (MP) in the UK: 

Subject: URGENT!!...PLEA to HELP STOP this WAR!!!

Dear Mr. McNamara,

Surely, as a Member of Parliment, knowing what you know...you know that sending boys and girls from the UK off to FIGHT a WAR that is (still), at best, QUESTIONABLE is WRONG! The following message was sent to all six of the e-mail addresses listed on the contact page of the Human Rights Watch site (found at: http://www.hrw.org/ ) LATE Saturday night:

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Jan Beimdiek and I am the Directing CEO of MAMMA (M+others Aligned for Military & Murder Accountability), the group referenced by Sonya Killian, when she
contacted you. This dubious honor is the result of the fact that I am first and foremost the proud mother of HM3 Scott Michael Beimdiek, USN, who was viciously and violently murdered while serving in the military of the United States. Since his death, it has been a ‘rude awakening’ to realize that he, like every other member of our military, had been serving under a government that is not willing to service them or their families and in fact is fostering and nurturing a systemic situation of Reckless Endangerment. There IS a problem with non-combat deaths in the military and the implications and ramifications of this problem are extensive. 

For years, decades really, grieving families of deceased military personnel have been
confounded by a system that, to date, adheres and conforms well to the haunting
declaration made by Charles J. Stahl, former Director of the Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology, who said: "When we are done, you will get reports and pictures and you can
take them wherever and to whomever you want. It won’t get you anywhere. This is the
Court of Last Resort and you have no place else to go!" To growing numbers of families
with a family member, who was or is serving in the United States Military, the words
‘Justice’ and ‘Accountability’ are just that...words! 

The MAMMA site ( http://oocities.com/gold_star_mother ) was set up as a ‘collection
point’ demontration of systemic problems within the military and the DoD. Truely a
‘Field of Dreams’, built by the ‘Dirt’ uncovered by a growing number of individual
families, banding together to recruit a TEAM to ‘go to bat’ for the ‘victims’ of these
Injustices.

Geoff Gray, father of Pte. Geoff Gray, deceased (under questionable circumstance),
contacted MAMMA (see the MN Connection page of the MAMMA site) and it came to
light that the UK is also experiencing a ‘problem’ with non combat deaths in the military. To the credit of Mr. Gray and a ‘core’ group of families known as the ‘Deepcut Four’,  the last couple of months have seen incredible advancements toward redress of this deplorable and despicable ‘issue’, complete with it’s entailing implications of other
military abuses.

On February 4, 2003, during a ‘Debate’ at Westminster Hall, Kevin McNamara, MP,
‘went to bat’ for the UK military families and made the ‘case’ for a Public Inquiry. His
efforts brought focus to the heretofore elusive answer to the question: "Why are the UK
families, relatively ‘new’ to the issue of questionable deaths in the military, succeeding
while the US military families, who have labored for years to get the very same thing, are still bogged down in a quagmire?" 

Scrutiny of the ‘Text’ of that debate (see Calculus 101 on the Little Red Hen page of
MAMMA’s site) reveals the FACT that Members of Parliament view Military abuses,
even military abuse of ‘power’, as a Human Rights Issue...NOT a matter of ‘Military
Justice’ or (as seen in the U.S.) ‘MILITARY INJUSTICE’!

A review of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as ‘posted’ by the UN
Organization was, to be blunt, down right INSULTING! The United States Military and
the DoD are in violation of no fewer than nine (9) of the ‘Articles’ contained in that
Document and they have become quite artful in their continual abuse of Article 30 that
should be prohibiting them: "...to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at
the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." Through
manipulation and malfeasance, the military hierarchy and the DoD have been
circumventing Congress, which is quickly deteriorating into a state of ‘IRRELEVANCY’,
reduces to little more than a ‘purse’ that funds the military as it continues usurping
POWER!

It’s regrettable that this message has gotten this lengthy. However, that is the backdrop
that brings me to your ‘doorstep’ with this plea for HELP! Can/will you undertake an
effort to expose Human Rights Violations in the United States that render military
personnel and their families vulnerable to life threatening situations of ‘Reckless
Endangerment’and risks that have nothing to do with a ‘declared enemy’ or even a
questionably (just or unjust in nature) proposed WAR?

Should this request surpass the capabilities of your organization, could you, please, direct us to anyone who can answer these two questions:

1) Has the Declaration of Human Rights become ‘irrelevant’ when the ‘abused’ victims
are citizens of the United States, thus making the document a matter of "Do as we say,
not as we do?

2) WHY should United States Service Members be expected to lay their lives on the line
for ‘alleged’ Human Rights Violations against Iraqi peoples (in a military rendition of the ‘pot’ calling the ‘kettle’ black), when their own Human Rights and those of their families are being violated and a course of ‘redress’ is nowhere to be found?

The ‘issue’ of non combat deaths in the military is truly a matter of Life and Death and
the problem will only worsen without appropriate action being taken to STOP IT! Thank
you for any time and/or attention you afford this request as your assistance would be
greatly appreciated and is desperately needed. Please, feel free to contact me, at any time, with any questions you have and I’ll look forward to hearing from you.

God Bless America and her Defenders!
Jan Beimdiek, Directing CEO of MAMMA
Phone: (218) 233-6695 or Fax/phone: (218)233-5114
*********************************************************
Of course they haven't had a chance to respond, yet, and now there's a very REAL chance that our world could be at WAR, by the end of the day. This CAN NOT BE ALLOWED!

It's really SAD that there aren't any MOTHERS in places of POWER, who would tell the LEADERS of countries that SAY they don't want war that "TALK is CHEAP!" and if you truly don't want war...JUST SAY NO! And when they ask HOW??? Tell them to have planes from EVERY country that's saying NO WAR alert Iraqi that they will have planes in the 'No Fly Zone'...just long enough to 'Put them on the GROUND in Iraq' and say NO...BACK OFF until a still 'relevant' UN can sort things out! After all, when 'two little boys' (no matter what their age) are itching for a 'FIGHT', isn't the best way to 'Break it Up' a matter of 'Stepping between them and saying NO!!!!??? I may be 'Just a Mother', but in 'Mother Manuals' it doesn't get any Simpler than that!

Presumably YOU know or at least know how to contact people, who have POWER.
Please, I'm begging you! TRY to contact someone, ANY ONE, and submit this 'humble'
suggestion. THANK YOU for any time, attention or effort you afford this matter because
you KNOW if our world goes to WAR it'll be a matter of GOD, HELP US ALL!

Jan Beimdiek, MOTHER of HM3 Scott Beimdiek, USN, DECEASED!

The 'Leadership' of the United States has lowered the stature of an entire country, in the eyes of great numbers of people through out the world, by attacking another 'Sanctioned' Democratic Country. Aside from the ambiguous claim of 'Human Rights Abuse' of the Iraqi people and no doubt there are many...does anyone REALLY have a 'clue' as to WHY? we are at War? Is there a 'List' of specific and defined 'Charges' that warrant such an action?

If you are thinking it's an 'issue' that pits Iraq against the United Nations..."Mike" Clausen, one of the 'Guest' Presenters for the Little Red Hen's History Symposium, found this article in the latest New American......it's presented, here, as an excellent example of the 'Military Twist' that 'begs' to ask the question: Isn't the Leader of a Country who, alone, in a manner akin to the 'Pot calling the Kettle black', decides to declare WAR and 'bully' others to follow suit, usually, known as a Dictator?

Please, think about that as you read:
 

On literally scores of occasions since the latest crisis in Iraq began last fall, President Bush has stated unambiguously that the purpose of military action against Saddam's regime would be to enforce the will of the United Nations.

In addresses to the UN, speeches to the American public, and pep talks to the troops,
Mr. Bush has repeatedly and emphatically said that he considers Saddam's defiance of the UN to be intolerable, and that war with Iraq is necessary to enhance the world
body's prestige, and its power to disarm supposedly sovereign nations.

The president pointedly reiterated that theme during his March 6th prime-time press
conference. According to Mr. Bush, the matter of war and peace in Iraq depends on a
single question: 

"Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by [Security
Council] Resolution 1441, or has it not?…. The only acceptable outcome is the one
already defined by a unanimous vote of the Security Council -- total
disarmament….Should we go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament."

Whether or not a second Security Council Resolution is adopted, American military
action against Iraq would be a mission to empower the UN. Mr. Bush made that
undeniably clear in this remarkable statement from the March 6th press conference:

"[I]t's hard to say that the United States is defiant about the United Nations, when I
was the person who took the issue to the United Nations, September the 12th, 2002.
We've been working with the United Nations. We've been working through the United Nations…. I want the United Nations to be effective. It's important for it to be a robust, capable body. It's important for its words to mean what they say…."

During that same press conference, the president recalled: "I swore to protect and
defend the Constitution; that's what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath, and that's exactly what I'm going to do." By his own public testimony of his intention to build and sustain the power of the UN, the president convicts himself of perjury in swearing that grave oath to defend our Constitution.

Many of the president's most outspoken conservative supporters are also vehement
critics of the UN. For some reason, conservatives of that variety are unwilling to take
the president at his word when he says that he intends to use our military to empower
the anti-American United Nations.

The term used by most commentators to describe the Bush administration's foreign
policy is "unilateralist." It's true that the president claims the right to attack Iraq
unilaterally if the UN Security Council fails to adopt another resolution specifically
authorizing a military strike. But little attention has been paid to President Bush's
unprecedented decision to define Saddam's defiance of the UN as a threat to our
national security.

Under the Bush formula, we can only be secure if the UN has the power to enforce its
disarmament decrees. Granted, few regimes are worthier targets of disarmament
efforts than that of Saddam Hussein. But the precedent set by using our military to
carry out UN disarmament designs will haunt our nation someday -- and that day will come much sooner than most people think if we insist on squandering our wealth and resources on unnecessary foreign wars.

Saddam is incontestably a world-class thug, but he is not a credible threat to American security. The Iraqi people and the world at large would be better off if Saddam were Stalin's roommate in hell. But sending him there and reconstructing Iraq's government are not America's job.

Even though the president's supporters, dutifully taking their cues from the White
House, depict Saddam's regime as a mortal threat to our national security, the
president's behavior suggests that he doesn't really believe the party line.

Here's one telling illustration: During his February 5th presentation to the UN
Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell outlined what he called the "sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder." 

That network, Powell explained, is "headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, a
…collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants."

Zarqawi was among the American-sponsored Mujahadin warriors who fought the
Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s, and oversaw an al-Qaeda training camp in
Afghanistan until he was forced to flee the U.S.-led military coalition in 2002.
According to Powell, "[T]he Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and
explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq." The
Secretary of State buttressed this alarming claim with satellite photos of the terrorist
training camp.

This dramatic disclosure was heralded by administration supporters as proof of Iraqi
connivance with the 9-11 plotters. But that characterization is difficult to reconcile
with a small but crucial admission made by Powell during his presentation: "Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq."

In other words, that group is actually operating out of territory under the protection of the so-called international community.

We know where that terrorist training camp is located. Saddam's writ does not run
over that corner of Iraq. We have military assets in the region that have been used for
over a decade to enforce "no fly zones" over Iraq, and conduct periodic bombing
campaigns in Iraq proper.

Why, then, doesn't the administration simply bomb Zarqawi's camp, rather than citing its existence in an attempt to win support for a UN-sponsored war on Iraq?

More to the point:

If Saddam's regime poses an apocalyptic threat to us, why is the Bush administration
taking the time and trouble to get UN approval, rather than presenting its case to
Congress and securing a declaration of war?

Last fall, Texas Representative Ron Paul proposed a resolution declaring war on Iraq, only to have it voted down in committee by congressional allies of the White House. (Rep. Paul, who voted against the measure, sponsored it to call the Warhawks' bluff.)

So Saddam allegedly poses a threat so grave that it justifies a UN-authorized
pre-emptive strike against Iraq -- but not a congressional declaration of war.

It is possible that the Iraqi crisis will be resolved short of outright war, perhaps
through Saddam Hussein's abdication. However, the Bush administration and the UN are planning for a lengthy U.S. occupation of Iraq, whether or not a war occurs.

In a February 26th speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Mr. Bush described in detail how the envisioned occupation would disarm Iraq and reconstruct its political system. Comparing the proposed occupation with the post-World War II reconstruction of Japan and Germany, the president insisted that "we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more." He declined to mention that U.S. military personnel are still in Japan and Germany more than a half-century after their surrender.

According to the March 5th Times of London, "The United Nations has drawn up a
confidential plan to establish a post-Saddam government in Iraq…. It proposes … the creation of a UN Assistance Mission in Iraq, known as UNAMI, to help to establish a new government.

UN sources expected the plan to be implemented even if the U.S. goes to war without a UN resolution authorizing military action." Following the leak of that document, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan denied that a "secret" plan exists -- but nonetheless confirmed many of the particulars described in the London Times account.

Retired General Jay Garner, head of the newly created Pentagon office of
reconstruction and humanitarian affairs, would serve as proconsul in Iraq for at least three months, after which the mission would be turned over to the UN. And according to the March 6th Washington Post, the Bush administration plans to put the UN in charge of revenue from Iraq's oil exports.

This open-ended mission would tie up tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of U.S. military personnel. It would devour tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. It will almost certainly precipitate more terrorist attacks against our nation. And if Mr. Bush gets his way, all of this will proceed without a congressional declaration of war.

During his most recent State of the Union Address, President Bush declared: "Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make." The same point was made in questions posed during the March 6th presidential press conference. Correspondent Ron Fournier asked: 

"Are we just days away from the point [at] which you decide whether or not we go to
war?" Reporter Jim Angle asked Mr. Bush if "you haven't already made the choice to go to war…." Another reporter identified in the transcript as "Gregory" began his
question, "If you order war…"

But the Constitution does not give the president the power to decide whether or not to go to war. Only Congress, by declaring war, can make that decision. Nor can Congress delegate that power to the president, as it supposedly did in last November's "use of force" resolution regarding Iraq.

As Abraham Lincoln observed in 1848: "Kings had always been involving and
impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good
of the people was the object. This, our [Constitutional] Convention understood to be
the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the
Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."

On occasions too numerous to list, and in language too candid to ignore, President
Bush has said that he intends to bring on our nation precisely the type of kingly
oppression denounced by Lincoln -- war without end, and without benefit to our
national interest. Conservatives who wish to avoid that fate really need to take
President Bush at his word.

"The Evils of Tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
John Hay 1872
SAEPE EXPERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATRES AETERNI
("Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever")  

By now, most likely, you've already guessed what this page will be all about. But, just to make sure that we're all on the 'same page', it's purpose is easy to define by noting that it's time that people, like you, get involved. 

Did you just ask, "WHY?"?

No one can answer that question for you...but you! However, if you'd like some 'input', consider the response of MAMMA's Directing CEO to the question, "Why are you involved in such a complex mishmash of 'issues' that center around Military Injustices?" The unequivocal reply to that question is: "I am involved because I am a mother and my children are worth it!"

The explaination for such a response is simple and anyone, who asks, would be told:
"My son, Scott, is laying in an 'early' GRAVE. His dignity has been assaulted and his name has been sullied. As he has no future, he deserves the RESPECT of having the TRUTH told about how he died.

My daughter, Joddi, has just become engaged to a young man, named Chris. Their 'future' has just been 'jeopardized' by a questionably warranted assault on Iraq. They and their (future) children deserve a 'Secure' future that is void of the implications and ramifications that are  inherent 'risks' (including being viewed as little more than 'irrelevant' guinea pigs that are expendable) from the current systemic situation of 'Reckless Endangerment' in the military."

The Military Hierarchy and the DoD have conspired, for years, to usurp POWER by circumventing Congress, thus rendering Senators and Representatives - THE PEOPLE - "IRRELEVANT". Is that acceptable to you? No? What are YOU going to do about it? How about...getting involved and telling Congress: "DO YOUR JOB"!?

We are at WAR!

The annuals of history, gifted with 20/20 hindsight, make it painfully clear that the first causality of war is TRUTH! The events surrounding the death of Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert, of the 101st Airborne, make it painfully clear that truth has been dead for a long while in THIS WAR!

First came reports, from the Pentagon, saying that as many as three U.S. missiles aimed at targets in Iraq landed in Iran. What happened to “We don’t miss what we are aiming for!”?

The State Department kicked into unadulterated military containment form and in a message sent through Swiss intermediaries, Iran was assured that the United States was investigating. Spokesman Philip Reeker offered public assurances that the United States respects Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. BUT...wasn’t Iraq a ‘Sovereign Nation’ with recognized ‘territorial integrity’, even as ‘no fly zone’ retaliatory strikes struck closer and closer to Bagdad prior to a ‘Declaration of War’?

Then came reports that a U.S. Patriot missile battery mistakenly shot down a British Royal Air Force Tornado GR4 fighter plane, killing both crew members...“the first (?) ‘friendly fire’ casualties of the war in Iraq.”

Gen., Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, jumped right into military containment form with an ‘explanation’ of how electronic procedures for identifying and differentiating friendly and enemy aircraft, meant to “ensure safe passage”, for friendly aircraft, “broke down somewhere.” BUT...isn’t this type of ‘communications breakdown’ awfully close to the, April 2002, ‘breakdown’ in Kandahar, that cost four Canadian soldiers their lives, when laser-guided U.S. bombs fell onto the Candians, who were involved in a live-fire training exercise that had been given final approval by the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division field commander, Colonel Francis Wiercinski?

Of course, the United States will ‘investigate’ the ‘incident’, assuring the families of a ‘full accounting’ and remedial measures to avoid any future ‘mishaps’, all the while, asking for the ‘understanding’ that “Accidents Happen!” Please, pray for these families, who, given the history of ‘accidental’ non-combat military deaths, are in for a LONG wait!

Will these families just end up is line with the ‘families’ of:
- Airman Marc Zaharko, who, untrained in ordinaces, was blown apart by an unexploded ordinance???
- PFC Randall Driskill, who was crushed to death by a 5 ton truck during ‘training’ maneuvers???
- SSgt Richard Robak Jr, who bled to death, shot with ‘live’ ammunition, during a ‘lazer tag’ training exercise???
- AR Micah Schindler, who died during a ‘training’ exercise that defied all extablished ‘safety’ measures???
- LCPL William Gralnik, who was shot to death during a ‘training’ exercise???
- ALL the deceased crew members of the USS Iowa and the list of familes, who want nothing more than the TRUTH, to ‘understand’ HOW and WHY their loved one died, goes on and on and.............

So when is an ‘Accident’ NOT just and Accident? Is a person’s LIFE just wasted if nothing was remedied after his/her ‘accidental’ DEATH? When will there be ‘Justice’ for the families expected to ‘understand’ that ‘Accidents Happen’? The ‘line-up’ is growing, but the ‘full accounting’ seems to be ‘missing in action’!

When reports came out, of a ‘grenade attack’ at camp in Kuwait, that killed Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert and wounded 13 other servicemen, it became ‘painfully’ clear, from the ‘vantage point’ of families, currently dealing with the ‘issue’ of non-combat military deaths, that TRUTH, in this WAR, is truly DEAD!

Following the disclosure that military authorities had identified Sgt. Asan Akbar, a member of the 101st Airborne Division, as the ‘alleged’ perpetrator, George Heath, civilian spokesman for Fort Campbell, KY, the ‘storied’ Division’s home base, became the embodiment of ‘military containment form’. According to Associated Press accounts, Mr. Heath stated: 1) “Incidents of this nature are abnormalities throughout the Army, specifically in the 101st.”, 2) “Death is a tragic incident regardless of how it comes, but when it comes from a fellow comrade, it does even more to hurt morale. 3) Our hearts and prayers go out to the families of the soldier. 4) We pray that incidents of this nature do not happen again in any military organization.” and 5) “Akbar had been having what some might call an attitude problem.” Is there a ‘limit’ to the number of ways that one can say, LIE!(?)

For our ‘civilian’ visitors...allow MAMMA to translate this rendition of the ‘Military Twist’:
1) The phrasing: “Incidents of this nature are abnormalities throughout the Army”, imprints the intended ‘thought’ that such ‘incidents’ are rare or few and most people leave it at that, but consider:
- Though ‘common sense’ would dictate that such an abhorent ‘incident’ is abnormal, the fact is such abhorent behavior is on the rise, isn’t it a bit ‘twisted’ to expect everyone to forget:
a) the June of 2002 ‘incidents’, when Henry Berry, manager of family advocacy programs at Fort Bragg reported the “mind-boggling” slayings of four Army wives? or
b) the July 5, 1999, ‘homicide’ of PFC Barry L. Winchell whose ‘brains’ were ‘bashed out with a baseball bat’ at Fort Campbell, KY? Did Mr. Heath ‘forget’ that or is he just hoping that everyone else has?  [This tragic ‘injustice’ is referenced in the ‘questionable’ death of CPL. Christopher Miller, USMC]
- Doesn’t ‘common sense’ mandate questioning the frequency and nature of abhorrent incidents in the military?

2) While the entire statement: “Death is a tragic incident” through the conclusion “...it does even more to hurt morale.” is TRUE, the phrasing ‘twists’ the imprint of what is ‘important’ to most people. Thus, while the mind of a reasonable person has been focused on how the death of this or any individual is “tragic”, the military’s ‘bottom line’, that it ‘hurts morale’, barely registers. [Anatomy 101 <link> may help you understand how the military measures the ‘worth’ of an individual LIFE when it competes with their perception of what’s good for the ‘Corps’.]

3) Doesn’t it ‘sound’ good to ‘think’ that the military is extending their ‘heart’ and ‘prayers’ to the soldier’s family? Given the military’s harped on phrase: “If we’d wanted you to have a ‘family’, we’d have ‘issued’ you one!”, doesn’t the “hearts and prayers’ sentiment fall a bit flat?