[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. ____________________