[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 8385-8386]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        SERGEANT KEVIN BENDERMAN

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CYNTHIA McKINNEY

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 28, 2005

  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I speak with you today about one of 
America's heroes, Sgt. Kevin Benderman. Sgt. Benderman is not a hero 
because he served a tour of duty in the Occupation of Iraq, though he 
did. He is not a hero because of the medals he was awarded, nor his ten 
years of honorable service in the U.S. Army.
  No, Sgt. Kevin Benderman is a hero because when all around him are 
pressing forward to prosecute a violent war against the people of Iraq, 
Kevin Benderman had the courage to stand up and assert his heartfelt 
opposition to war.
  Sgt. Benderman's opposition is not the theoretical if sincere 
opposition of a student peace activist. Kevin Benderman has seen things 
that none of God's children should have to endure. He was present when 
his superior ordered his unit to open fire on small children who were 
throwing rocks at the soldiers of his unit. He chased the hungry dogs 
from an open mass grave filled with the bodies of young children, old 
men and women. Kevin saw the burned child, crying in pain, while all 
around her ignored her injuries.
  As he reflected on what he had experienced, he chose to not re-
enlist, to not participate in a war and an institution that he could no 
longer square with his evolving yet sincerely held beliefs. But 
stretched by an immoral war, based on lies, beyond the limits of the 
resources afforded them, our military adopted a ``stop loss order'' 
policy to arbitrarily breech the contracts our nation made with those 
who serve in its military services.
  So Kevin did what was necessary. He applied for Conscientious 
Objector status. His officers up the chain of command refused their 
duty to accept his application. His commander called him a coward. His 
unit chaplain refused to meet with him, writing by email that he was 
``ashamed'' of Kevin. He was charged with ``Desertion with Intent to 
Avoid Hazardous Duty'' and ``Missing Movement by Design''. His 
preliminary hearings methodically violated every precept of substantive 
due process. He now faces a Court Martial on May 11 and the possibility 
of seven years in the stockade.
  Every member of our Armed Forces raises their hands, as do we, and 
take an oath, as do we, to ``defend the Constitution of the United 
States''. That Constitution protects the ``Right of Conscience'', 
including the right to conscientiously object to war as an instrument 
of public policy. But given the climate we face right now, asserting 
such a right takes real courage. And it is the exercise of that courage 
which makes Sgt. Benderman a hero in my book.
  It is a crime and a shame that while we are so busy working to expand 
freedom to other nations, we can't slow down to protect our precious 
freedoms among ourselves.

            [From the Savannah Morning News, March 28, 2005]

Defense Lawyer, Investigator Square Off Over Benderman's Conscientious 
                          Objector Application

                          (By John Carrington)

       Filings and e-mails show that a `non-adversarial' hearing 
     over Sgt. Kevin Benderman's conscientious objector status was 
     anything but cordial.
       Sgt. Kevin Benderman poses with his wife Monica following 
     Article 32 proceedings, a military court process similar to a 
     preliminary hearing. Benderman, who has applied for 
     conscientious objector status, has been charged with 
     desertion for not deploying to Iraq with his unit.
       The defense lawyer and the investigating officer for Sgt. 
     Kevin Benderman's conscientious objector application 
     apparently attended different hearings last month.
       Both sides maintain they kept their cool during the 
     hearing, saying the other side lost theirs, according to 
     written recommendations and rebuttals released to the 
     Savannah Morning News.
       One thing is clear: a hearing that was, according to Army 
     regulations, supposed to be a ``non-adversarial'' proceeding 
     was anything but that.
       Capt. Victor Aqueche, the Fort Stewart-appointed 
     investigating officer, wrote in a recommendation memo 
     following the hearing that Benderman was ``argumentative'' at 
     times, and his demeanor ``untactful'' at others.
       In his rebuttal, Maj. S. Scot Sikes, Benderman's military 
     lawyer, said Aqueche at times became ``agitated, snide and 
     hostile'' toward Benderman.
       Sikes argued that Aqueche's ``incestuous appointment'' as 
     investigating officer set the tone for this type of ill-
     willed ping-pong.
       ``(Aqueche) is assigned to the same battalion command,'' 
     and consequently ``was placed in the position of making a 
     critical determination regarding a soldier assigned to one of 
     his colleague captain's own units,'' Sikes wrote.
       In an interview Monday, Sikes said, ``That bothered me. You 
     know they're buds.''
       Aqueche did not respond to requests for comment.
       Sikes also said Monday he knew the command looked at the 
     timing of Benderman's request--just before he was scheduled 
     to deploy--with suspicion. ``But it should have not been so 
     hostilely received.''
       That goes against the ``non-adversarial'' tone and tenor 
     the application review is supposed to have, he said.
       Sikes asked for a new hearing, a request he says was 
     denied. He now has until Friday to file another rebuttal to 
     Aqueche's response to the defense's initial rebuttal.
       In early February, Sikes and Aqueche squared off almost 
     immediately over the hearing's timing. It was scheduled the 
     day after an Article 32 hearing to determine whether 
     Benderman would face a general court-martial on charges he 
     deserted and missed the January movement of his troops as 
     they deployed to Iraq.
       Sikes wanted a delay of a ``mere'' week. ``Sgt. Benderman 
     is very concerned that he cannot be adequately prepared for a 
     hearing,'' Sikes wrote in a Feb. 3 e-mail attached to the 
     rebuttal. ``Preparations for the Article 32 cannot be 
     overstated; it's very important.''
       Aqueche shot down the request with the following e-mail: 
     ``Sgt. Benderman made a conscious decision to take 14 days of 
     leave prior to his Article 32 . . . A delay as such could be 
     considered `insincerity' on the part of Sgt. Benderman.''
       The investigation officer also said, ``There is no 
     preparation needed on Sgt. Benderman's behalf in order to 
     answer questions regarding this application.''
       Yet Aqueche, in his March 23 recommendation memo, wrote, 
     ``I firmly believe Sgt. Benderman was not prepared for the 
     in-depth questions presented during the CO hearing.''
       Aqueche's memo also said that, during the hearing, 
     Benderman would consult with Sikes and then either refuse to 
     answer questions--and question their relevancy to the 
     application--or offer ``vague'' or delayed answers.
       Sikes pointed out that, as Benderman's lawyer for both the 
     court-martial charges and the conscientious objector 
     application, he had to keep the sergeant from saying anything 
     that could create more legal problems in the criminal case.

[[Page 8386]]

       ``And Aqueche made that out to be a negative thing,'' Sikes 
     said Monday. ``Anything Benderman says can be used against 
     him in the court-martial. That puts me in a precarious 
     position. There are some things I just could not let him 
     answer.''
       The court-martial is scheduled for May 12. Sikes likes 
     Benderman's chances on the desertion charges.
       ``It seems kind of silly to say he deserted over a 
     weekend,'' the lawyer said Monday. ``He was right there at 
     his house, only 2 to 3 miles from the post.''
       Despite Aqueche's characterization of Benderman's demeanor 
     during the hearing--and the captain's recommendation to deny 
     the sergeant's application--Sikes also thinks Benderman will 
     have better luck higher up the chain of command.


                              WHAT'S NEXT

       Maj. S. Scot Sikes, Benderman's military lawyer, asked for 
     a new hearing, a request he says was denied. He now has until 
     Friday to file another rebuttal to Capt. Victor Aqueche's 
     response to the defense's initial rebuttal.

                          ____________________