"I was afraid of waking up one morning to realize my humanity had abandoned me."
—Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia, conscientious objector

The world is indeed a different place since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Since then the United States has attacked and invaded two nations in the name of freedom and security. The military's continual engagement in these conflicts brings to light one fundamental issue that has been part of military history since its beginning: conscientious objection in the military and among those who are concerned about a possible military draft.

Before Sept. 11, conscientious objection was a sideline issue. Since the attacks and ensuing wars, many conscientious objectors have publicly stated their opposition to war, even risking jail time. Others have advocated for the return of the military draft.

The draft. In January 2003 Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) introduced the Universal National Service Act (H.R. 4752), which was intended to reinstate the draft. This bill, though it had little chance of passing, brought to light that many in Congress do not understand conscientious objection. The provision in the bill for C.O. status was limited and turned the clock back to the era of WWI, where all conscientious objectors were drafted into the military as "non-combatants."

Rep. Rangel's bill has inspired much debate. Some have argued that politicians will be slow to approve war if everyone-including their own children-were required to serve. Others have said that with a draft in place, youth from "peace churches" will learn the value and integrity of service through the alternative service system. Some argue that a draft will weaken the military and make it less effective; or that any kind of a draft is not good because it will only provide a steady stream of bodies into the battlefield. Whether or not a draft is imminent, the reality of living in a post-Sept. 11 world is that Congress and the general public need to be constantly reminded of what conscientious objectors believe.

Conscientious objection in the military. As with any war, the number of conscientious objectors in the military increased after the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Many soldiers have realized that they cannot in good conscience participate in war. Some have made public statements declaring their beliefs; others have quietly applied for C.O. status. Additionally, for the first time since Vietnam, some have crossed the northern border into Canada to find refuge.

Unlike the first Gulf War, the military did not suspend its C.O. discharge policy. However, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone to be discharged or reassigned as such. Many find that processing a claim can take six months or longer and during this time they are mistreated or given orders that would force them to violate their beliefs. Others who have gone public with their opposition to war have had to face harsher treatment, including jail time. As the military engages deeper into conflicts in different parts of the world, many within the ranks come out opposing war. And as more soldiers speak out, the military works harder to silence their voices.

This includes voices like those of Kevin Benderman, who is currently serving a fifteen-month jail term, and others like Katherine Jashinski, Diedra Cobb, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. These courageous men and women stood up to the military structure from the inside and made sure that their voices were heard. These voices are an essential part in the effort to end the ongoing war in Iraq.

Conscientious objection is no longer just a Vietnam issue; it is one that many young people and military service members face. As the government engages in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and as rumors spread of wars to come, many more people are standing up and declaring that they cannot participate in war or violence.