But for now, I want to say my deepest gratitude to the many, many people that stood behind Travis during his case. There are so many people who stood with us and we are forever grateful that we weren’t in this fight by ourselves.

Most of all though, I want to thank Travis for taking the stand he took. I am awed by his courage and for his willingness to suffer for what is right.

This fight ain’t over though. We are gearing up for the appeals process and hope you’ll continue to stand with Travis. More information on the case and how you can support it can be found at the website for the Oklahoma Center for Conscience.

Thanks,
James M. Branum, civilian defense attorney for Travis Bishop

Here’s the deal: I’ve been trying so hard to write a ‘Thank You’ letter to everyone that supported me throughout this ordeal, and it’s so damn difficult to articulate everything that everyone has done for me. I’ve been trying so hard not to leave anyone out, and it’s impossible. So I will do the absolute best that I can, and if anyone feels left out, please contact me and I will apologize.

Amnesty International, Courage To Resist, Veterans For Peace, Christians For Peace, Disposable Warriors and a host of other organizations are responsible for rallying supporters to my cause. I am deeply in your debt. Thank you so, so much for believing in me and supporting me.

GI Coffeehouses Under The Hood Café, (Ft. Hood), and Coffee Strong, (Ft. Lewis), were instrumental in protesting my incarceration and getting the word out to everyone who would listen. Words cannot express my gratitude.

James Branum and Chuck Luther, you both should know just how much you mean to me. You guys were in my corner during my darkest times in that facility, and you always brought me good news and hope for the future. You are my best allies and my dear friends. Thank you both so much.

To every individual supporter and sympathizer, I thank you so much for your letters, comments, thoughts and prayers. I absolutely drew all my strength from each and every one of you. I wish I could thank every one of you personally.

I know for a fact that I left people out, and all I can say is that I love, admire and respect everyone who supported me. If I left you out, please accept my apologies. Some of my things were lost in transit so I don’t have everyone’s names anymore. Please forgive me for the lateness of this thank you letter.

Again, thank you to everyone. You are all the reason that I was released early. The only one who DIDN’T get me out early was ME.

Hopes and prayers for the future,

-Travis

Media Contact: Seth Manzel, Director, Coffee Strong 253-228-8912

A celebration of Bishop’s release with local supporters will take place at Coffee Strong in Lakewood, WA on Sunday, March 28.

March 25, 2010
Fort Lewis, Washington – War Resister and conscientious objector Travis Bishop was released from the stockade at Fort Lewis Thursday morning.

Bishop originally was sentenced to 12 months in prison during his court-martial at Fort Hood, Texas for refusing to deploy to Afghanistan for reasons of conscience. He later received a three-month reduction in sentence due to a successful clemency application to the Commanding General at Fort Hood, as well as receiving extra time off for good behavior. Bishop served a total of seven months and 12 days of confinement. He also received reduction of rank from Sergeant to Private and a pending Bad Conduct Discharge.

While under confinement, Travis Bishop was recognized by Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience and updated his blog from the Northwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility. He also received support from hundreds of people from around the world who wrote letters of encouragement for him and also to military authorities calling for his release.

Bishop spoke out about the inhumane conditions at the Fort Lewis stockade, which produced some reform in treatment of prisoners at the facility. Bishop was placed on the facility’s “most difficult” prisoners list for these efforts.

Local supporters of Bishop are planning a celebration to take place at Coffee Strong, beginning at 3 p.m. on Sunday, March 28. Coffee Strong is located at 15109 Union Ave SW, Lakewood, SW, next to Subway. Staff will provide refreshments and Bishop will speak at that time for public comment only. He will not be available prior to 3 p.m. on March 28.

For more information or to schedule an individual interview with either Bishop or his defense team, please contact Seth Manzel at 253-228-8912 or attorney James Branum at 405-476-5620.

Friends and local supporters of Travis Bishop are invited to a celebration starting at 3 p.m. On Sunday, March 28th at Coffee Strong, (15109 Union Avenue Southwest, Lakewood, WA, near Fort Lewis).

This event will be Travis’ first public speaking event since his release from the stockade at Fort Lewis.

Local supporters are encouraged to come and show your support. Admission is free but donations are welcome to help Travis with his legal fees and to help him get reestablished in his civilian life.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, Travis Bishop received a 12 month sentence in a court-martial at Fort Hood for refusing to deploy to Afghanistan for reasons of conscience. He was sent to the notorious NWJRCF (Northwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility) at Fort Lewis to do his time.

While in the brig, Travis Bishop was recognized by Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience and wrote a blog from jail.
He also received support from hundreds of people from around the world who wrote both letters of encouragement to him but also wrote letters to the Fort Hood Commanding General asking for Travis to be released from prison. Bishop also spoke out about the bad conditions at the Fort Lewis brig, which resulted in some reforms at the facility as well as Travis being placed on the facility’s “most difficult” prisoners list.

In February 2010, Travis Bishop was granted a 3 month reduction in his sentence by the Fort Hood Commanding General as a result of a successful clemency application. He is scheduled to be released this week from the stockade.

Following his release, Travis hopes to continue to speak out about conscientious objection, as well as to pursue a career in country
music.

PRESS: Members of the press are encouraged to come to the celebration. Individual interviews with either Travis or his defense team can be scheduled by contacting Coffee Strong at (253) 581-1565 or James Branum at (405)476-5620.

For more information:

• Free Travis Bishop blog – freetravisbishop.wordpress.com
• Courage to Resist – www.couragetoresist.org
• Coffee Strong – www.givoice.org/coffeestrong
• Under the Hood Cafe – www.underthehoodcafe.org/
• GIRightslawyer.com – www.girightslawyer.com
• Disposable Warriors – www.disposablewarriors.com/

What is worth noting is towards the end, where in my cross-examination, I got Chaplain Leininger to say that civil law is God’s law, that is was “sad” that people break the law in civil disobedience to injustice and that those who broke the law during the civil rights era for the sake of justice “thought they were doing the right thing.”

LIEUTENANT COLONEL (CHAPLAIN) RON LEININGER, HHB, 69th ADA Brigade, U.S. Army, was called as a witness for the prosecution, was sworn, and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by the trial counsel:

Q. Sir, have you ever met the accused, Sergeant Bishop before?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. What the purpose of that meeting?

A. As part of his conscientious objector packet, per the regulation, he’s required to meet with a unit chaplain, an Army chaplain, for a conscientious objector interview by the chaplain, and that was the only time that I’ve met him.

Q. Sir, what’s the purpose of that interview that you did with him?

A. Per the regulation, it is to do two primary things. It’s to establish his basis of belief, and the sincerity of his beliefs in my professional opinion.

Q. And did you form an opinion during that interview?

A. I did.

Q. Sir, what is your opinion of the sincerity of those beliefs?

A. He is not—-

CDC: Objection, Your Honor. He’s asking him to be a human lie detector, to talk about what Sergeant Bishop told him, which is a section III issue.

MJ: Very well, counsel. Counsel, as I said before, I have notified you that I would allow the government to do this, you opened the door with four witnesses telling the panel that he was sincere in his beliefs. The government has the right to rebut that now, because you have opened the door. Because you have opened that door, and I told you about that, I’m going to allow the question of counsel. Overruled.

You may continue, counsel.

Q. Sir, did you form an opinion about those beliefs?

A. I did.

Q. And what is your professional opinion of his beliefs?

A. It was not a deeply held or sincerely held belief.

Q. Sir, is that what’s required to qualify for conscientious objector status?

A. As far as the chaplain piece of it, yes. It’s for the chaplain to commit to either a belief that the person is sincere in their basis of belief, and their sincerity of it, or not. I did not believe so, and that is how my document that went up to the chain of command as per the reg stated it.

TC: Yes, sir.

Your Honor, no further questions.

MJ: Very well.

Defense, do you have any cross?

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

Q. Sir, was the interview you did with Sergeant Bishop about 20 minutes long?

A. No, sir.

Q. How long was it?

A. 45 minutes.

Q. Are you sure about that?

A. I’m very sure, because it began late. The Soldier was not able to get there before the 1 o’clock start time that was scheduled by the chain of command.

Q. Is it true that you took several phone calls during it?

A. It is not true, because I turned my blackberry cell phone off at the beginning of the session, and I told the Soldier as such, because that’s his time, not my time.

Q. I just want to make sure it’s clear that you’re under oath. You did not take any phone calls during that session?

TC: Your Honor, objection. Asked and answered.

MJ: Counsel, please be seated.
[The trial counsel did as directed.]

MJ: You may proceed, counsel. Overruled.

Q. You didn’t–so I’ve made it 100 percent clear, you took no phone calls during that interview, is that correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. I want to–I have a copy of memorandum for records you wrote as part of Sergeant Bishop’s CO claim. I’m going to read from a little bit of it and ask you a question from it. In this—-

TC: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay.

MJ: Counsel, he’s using it to test the basis of the opinion of the witness that you put on the witness stand. He has the right to do that through cross-examination.

You may continue, counsel. Overruled.

Q. In your letter, you state that you have issues with his sincerity. You argue the timing issue. And then there’s a quote I want to read from you on this, you add, “But this coupled with his admissions, simultaneous contacts with two anti-military groups, one of which is called the Iraq Veterans Against the War, lead me to question the sincerity and depth of his new-found convictions.”

Is that still an accurate reflection of what you believe today?

A. It’s a historical record. It’s irrelevant to my belief.

Q. What is your belief today?

A. What I stated in my record, in my memorandum, that’s part of his packet.

Q. As a chaplain, have you reviewed AR 643, your–what you’re required to know as a chaplain conducting this interview?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you aware that AR 643 says that a valid conscientious objector can have valid political beliefs as well as the beliefs of conscience?

A. I’m not familiar to the letter of what the regulation says, so I can only say that if that’s what the regulation says, then that’s valid.

Q. I’m going to jump down now to section B. In your letter, you state, “Sergeant Bishop describes his family heritage as non-practicing Christians. He says that the closest church denomination that best describes his religious heritage is Baptist, akin to our US Army collective Protestant groups and orthodoxy in literacy. Concern of Evangelical roots as described are generally pro-military service, with no pacifist tendencies in doctrine or practice.”

Did you say that in your letter?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Are you aware that there are conservative Evangelical groups that hold different points of view?

TC: Objection, Your Honor. This is outside the scope of direct, and is a waste of time.

MJ: Counsel, let me say this. You put this witness on the witness stand to rebut the defense case. You have now opened the door to basis of his underlining opinion of why he did or did not have that opinion, and they can probe the basis of it to see if he has the expert opinion or the underlining knowledge to make that opinion. Therefore, he cross him on pretty much anything on that statement. So, if that helps you out in future objections, counsel, you may move on, it’s overruled.

CDC: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. Are you aware that there are individuals and ministers and even groups of concerned Evangelical churches that have pacifist viewpoints?

A. I’m aware of individuals, but not groups. Not historically speaking from my frame of reference.

Q. You’re not aware of the organization of Baptist Peace Fellowship?

A. No.

Q. You’re not aware of other Baptists that have filed for CO claims?

A. Individual Baptists, yes. But it’s like opinions, in my opinion. Those are opinions from individuals who are associated with a denominational group. My letter is addressing groups.

Q. In–as your understanding of conservative protestant theology with Baptist flavor in this letter, it does–let me ask you this.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. For people of this faith persuasion, is this a faith persuasion that puts emphasis on the conscience of the individual, or is belief highly regimented and dictated by a pastor, by a pope, by other religious leaders?

A. Could you define that–rephrase that question a little more specifically, please?

Q. Okay. Let me ask you a different way. What role does individual conscience have in the faith of a believer who is part of this faith tradition that you’re discussing here?

A. It’s a valid point, but it’s subordinate to the greater good.

Q. What about the concept of the Priesthood of Believers, how do you understand that in this concept–in this context here?

A. The Priesthood of Believers in the theological context, the orientation of Sergeant Bishop? That’s a question. Have you asked him?

Q. Well, I’m asking you.

A. Because that’s a person—-

Q. I’m asking you to—-

A. —-I don’t know.

Q. I’m sorry. I interrupted you.

A. Yes, sir. Because I don’t know his line-by-line theology or practical theology, how he expresses it.

Q. Okay.

A. So I can’t speak to his issue.

Q. So let me make sure I understand you correctly. In this, you’ve described to Bishop using what you believe–one faith tradition believes, but you don’t really know—-

A. As best as he could describe it to me, sir.

Q. Okay. But this–what you say here in section B, is a response to what you perceive Sergeant Bishop’s faith tradition to be, not what he actually—-

A. I asked him. I said, “Let me try to understand this,” and as I mirrored it back to him in my terminology, which is–which was, “You sound as if the closest group that you are similar to would be, what we in our culture are most familiar with, is the collective Protestant service,”—-

Q. Did you—-

A. —-and he agreed, and–sorry.

Q. Oh, go ahead.

A. Sir, and he agreed, yes, that’s correct.

Q. Did you quote him any–about his individual understanding restriction?

A. Yes.

Q. What question did you ask him, if you can give me at least some of that—-

A. What’s your basis of belief? What is your basis of belief, to include the Bible, the scripture which he believes in.

Q. Did his statement of beliefs completely coincide with conservative Evangelical groups, or was it somewhat different?

A. Did it coincide with—-

Q. Okay, did the viewpoints expressed by Sergeant Bishop in the chaplain’s interview, were they identical to conservative Evangelical groups, or were they different?

A. No, they were average.

Q. They were average.

A. Right.

Q. Okay.

A. They were very–highly individualistic.

Q. Okay.

A. Not part of the greater community responsibility that biblical teaching calls people to.

Q. As a chaplain in interviewing a conscientious objector claim, do you understand that you are not called to interpret the other person’s theology as correct in your eyes—-

A. Correct, very non-judgmental. That’s right.

Q. Okay. So, I guess I’m just trying to figure out the–you spend a lot of time in your letter discussing what conservative Evangelicals believe, and not–is that just because–is that because you really just saw that’s what Sergeant Bishop was in his faith, he came from that, could you explain that a little bit?

A. The regulation requires that I explain why I’ve come to the conclusions that I came to. During the session, that was not part of the agenda, to try to convert him, change him, fix him, condemn him, my job was to assess the sincerity of his belief and the nature of his beliefs. And then the regulation requires that document which I forwarded up through the chain of command, as the regulation requires.

Q. I also want to read from 3(c) of your letter. In that, you state, “Sergeant Bush, in the underlined style, has made bare his claim. Aside from recent personal, private, scripture readings, I have seen a lifestyle of behavior that would affirm a legitimate claim for CO status.”

Who is Sergeant Bush?

A. Oh, that’s a typo, sir. Sorry.

Q. Was that from a previous letter that you’ve used?

A. Not at all. I don’t use old letters.

Q. Okay.

A. Everybody gets a fair shake.

Q. Okay, so this–so–have you ever interviewed a CO called–named Bush?

A. No. No, sir. Of course not. That’s a typo, sir. Sorry. I’m a work in progress.

CDC: Sure, I understand.

Nothing further, Your Honor.

MJ: Very well.

Government, do you have any redirect?

TC: One moment, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by the trial counsel:

Q. Sir, isn’t it true that based on your interview with Sergeant Bishop, you concluded that he has no local church affiliation to speak of?

A. I detected none from him.

TC: That’s it, Your Honor. No further questions.

MJ: Defense, anything further?

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

Q. In your understanding of AR 643 and the other instructions you received as a chaplain to question COs, was affiliation with an individual church, is that a requirement for conscientious objector status?

A. It’s part of the process of establishing the Soldier’s belief system, to ask the question.

Q. Okay, is it possible for an atheist to apply for CO status?

A. Of course, any Soldier can.

CDC: Nothing further, Your Honor.

MJ: Very well.

Panel members, do you have any questions for this witness?

Apparently so.

[Questions from LTC Atkins, LTC Thompson, and MAJ Frawley were marked as AEs XXII, XXIII, and XXIV and XXV, respectively, inspected by both counsel, and handed to the military judge for questioning.]

MJ: Okay, what I’m going to do–Appellate Exhibit XXII, a question from Colonel Atkins–bailiff, could you come back up here?

Court reporter, please hand this back to the bailiff.
[The court reporter did as directed.]

What I want you to do is give it to both parties, government and the defense, and if either party has an objection, state the legal basis for the objection, not just write something down there. I want a legal basis if you have an objection, by rule number, or the specific objection of the law.

[The bailiff, trial counsel, and defense counsel did as directed.]

MJ: Panel members, I’ll wait until I get all of the questions before I start answering–asking them.

[Pause.]

MJ: Appellate Exhibit XXII is a question by Colonel Atkins. I’m going to overrule the objection.

QUESTIONS BY THE COURT-MARTIAL

Questions by the military judge:

Q. Are you aware of any religion that requires you to disobey noncommissioned officers or miss movement?

A. I’m sorry, sir—-

Q. Let me repeat—-

A. —-forgive me, forgive me.

Q. —-the question, Chaplain. No, it’s okay.

A. Go ahead, sir.

Q. Are you aware of any religion that requires you to disobey noncommissioned officers or miss movement as a part of the religion?

A. No, sir. None.

MJ: Does that answer your question, sir?

MEMBER [LTC ATKINS]: Certainly, sir.

MJ: Appellate Exhibit XXIII is a question by Colonel Thompson.

Q. What made you feel that he was not sincere, meaning Sergeant Bishop?

A. Ultimately, it’s a judgment call, based on the gathering of the facts at hand, and the professional and pastoral opinion of my assessment of it.

Q. Was there anything that stood out that made you come to that conclusion? I guess what’s she’s trying to get at—-

A. Yes. Yes, sir, sure. The–as reflected in my document as part of his packet, the–my appear–my belief that it was a shortly held belief system, and the timing of it with this other trouble that he was involved in, just struck me as quite odd. It doesn’t mean that he had some sincerity and belief in coming in. In my opinion, I had to call it the way I saw it, if this is not a deeply held or sincerely held belief.

Q. You said the shortness of the time period. What do you mean by shortness? Are you saying the short time period prior to the—-

A. Of these beliefs that he held.

Q. Okay, I understand.

A. That’s right.

MJ: Ma’am, does that answer your question?

[LTC Thompson indicated an affirmative response.]

MJ: Very well.

I’ll move on to Appellate Exhibit XXIV, a question from Major Frawley. I’ll overrule the objection and ask the question.

Q. Based on your assessment of Sergeant Bishop’s religious views, would it be consistent for him to make decisions without consideration for others’ well-being or security, if you know? Do you want me to repeat the question, chaplain?

A. Yes, sir. It’s multiple parts.

Q. Based on your assessment–based on your assessment of Sergeant Bishop’s religious views, would it be consistent for him to make decisions without consideration for others’ well-being or security, if you–if you were able to form an opinion?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what–tell the panel what your opinion is.

A. I believe that the point in his life, philosophically, this whole idea that he is a–hopes to receive a conscientious objector, that is a filter in which he’s going to see many things, make other decisions that I think will place at risk himself and others. I think they are definitely connected. They are not compartmentalized. They cannot be.

MJ: Very well.

Does that answer your question, Major Frawley?

MEMBER [MAJ FRAWLEY]: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.

MJ: I have Appellate Exhibit XXV, a question also by Major Frawley.

Q. Is it your job or within the scope of your evaluation of a CO application to consider the validity of political beliefs, or how political beliefs influence or are influenced by religious beliefs?

A. No, sir. That’s not the time and place to–for me to cast–make that determination on the validity of those belief systems. I only care about the Soldier and his perception of it, as it applied to the conscientious objector packet.

MEMBER [MAJ FRAWLEY]: Sir, if I may, an oral question to follow up?

MJ: Please, go ahead. A question by Major Frawley.

MEMBER [MAJ FRAWLEY]: So, as you look at the religious beliefs and how those religious beliefs impact on the conscientious objector status application, you mentioned in your paper that you’re–that he had contact with anti-war groups.

Do you, or should you, within the scope of your duties, look at that for a political prism, or a prism though which–which looks at the political alignment of the groups that he may have contact with, or is it purely separating his religious ideals from the political ideals?

I guess what I’m trying to get at, and that’s a very complex way of saying that, I apologize—-

WIT: Yes.

MEMBER [MAJ FRAWLEY]: —-yeah, I guess what I’m trying to get at is, where is the relevance of him having the contact with the political groups within the inspection of his religious beliefs?

WIT: He volunteered that information to me. I wasn’t probing.

MEMBER [MAJ FRAWLEY]: Okay.

WIT: I was asking him open-ended questions. Tell me what’s going on. That’s what–at that point–juncture is when that information came to my ears.

MJ: Let me follow up on that, Major Frawley.

Q. I think what he might also be getting to is did you use his affiliation or meeting potentially with any anti-war groups to help form the basis of your opinion in this case? Is that what you’re trying to get at?

MEMBER [MAJ FRAWLEY]: Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

No.
MEMBER [MAJ FRAWLEY]: My clarity is somewhat lacking.

A. No, I don’t think so. That’s a–everyone’s entitled to their opinion, okay? We know that’s how America works, even in the Army. I’ll leave it at that.

MJ: Again, that was an oral question by Major Frawley before I asked the question.

Defense, based off of my questions or the questions of the panel members, do you have any follow-up questioning for this witness?

CDC: One moment.

MJ: Sure, take your time.

CDC: We have a few questions.

MJ: Very well. Counsel, let me ask you this. Do you want to admit that document into evidence for the panel or not?

CDC: No, Your Honor.

MJ: Very well.

CDC: Unfortunately, it’s just to hazy to make out.

MJ: Okay.

CDC: I had a really bad scanner.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

Q. Sir, have–earlier you were asked if you know of any religion that requires someone to disobey orders, in a certain context. I wanted to ask you, what do you know–are there religions that require people to follow their conscience, no matter what?

A. All the good ones do.

Q. Okay, what do you mean the good ones?

A. Because that’s how God has created us, with a conscience and a free will.

Q. Is it possible that sometimes a conscience–that one’s conscience tells someone to do things that are against the law?

A. Is it possible–rephrase the question.

Q. Is it possible for someone’s conscience to compel them to break the law?

TC: Your Honor, I object. This is outside the scope of what—-

This is very philosophical.
TC: —-the question asked–the question that he was asked before was, is there a religion that requires you to disobey a noncommissioned officer—-

MJ: I understand—-

TC: —-not law or orders at large.

MJ: Counsel, I understand. I’m going to overrule the objection. I’m sure he’s just asking a few questions to get into this, based off of his responses.

You may proceed, counsel.

Q. I’ll restate the question.

A. Okay.

Q. Is–do you know of religions–well, let me back up. Is it possible for someone’s conscience to tell them to do something that’s against the law?

A. Sadly, it does happen, that they–that they follow that, and they break the law.

Q. You said sadly. Why did you say that?

A. Because I want–we all want everyone to do the right thing all the time, to obey the law. God’s law, God’s moral law, ethical law, written, civil law, of course.

Q. Let me ask you this, and I know this will be a little bit philosophical, but I think it’s connected.

A. Okay.

Q. What about the people of faith in the civil rights era that refused to obey the law? Were they following their conscience?

TC: Objection, Your Honor. Relevance?

MJ: Counsel, are you almost–I understand where you’re going, are you almost wrapped up with this?

CDC: Yes, this is my last question.

MJ: Overruled.

Civil rights era, you said?
Q. Yes, in the—-

A. About those who—-

Q. —-civil rights era, people of faith broke the law. Were they following their conscience when they did that, and why was that sad that they did that?

A. To the best of my knowledge, I wasn’t there, but I imagine that’s what they–they believe that’s what they were doing.

CDC: Okay, nothing further, Your Honor.

MJ: Government, do you have anything based off of that?

TC: No, Your Honor.

MJ: Panel members, any further questions based off of those?

[The members indicated a negative response.]

MJ: Very well.

Permanent excusal or temporary excusal, defense, excuse me, government?

TC: Permanent, Your Honor.

MJ: Very well.
[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned, and withdrew from the courtroom.]

WAR RESISTER TRAVIS BISHOP GETS THREE MONTH REDUCTION IN SENTENCE
Hundreds of letters from supporters credited with large part in victory

February 10, 2010

FORT HOOD, Texas – Sergeant Travis Bishop received word this week that he was given a 3 month suspension, of the 12 month sentence he received last year for refusing to deploy to Afghanistan based on his Christian religious beliefs against war.

Lt. General Robert Cone, commanding general of Fort Hood approved the sentence reduction on February 4th after considering Sgt. Bishop’s clemency application.

Sgt. Bishop’s clemency application included a legal brief (alleging problems at trial, problems with the processing of Bishop’s conscientious objector claim, and mistreatment at the Fort Lewis brig), a hand-written letter from Sgt. Bishop, and 433 letters (signed by a total of 538 people from 21 different countries) from members of Amnesty International calling for Sgt. Bishop to be released.

Sgt. Bishop’s civilian attorney, James M. Branum, estimates that Sgt. Bishop will be released no later than March 31 based on the amount of good behavior credit Sgt. Bishop has earned.

In an emotional response, Sgt. Bishop asked his legal team to relay this message to the public, “Thank you! Thank you! Thank you to everyone who wrote letters and supported me! This is amazing and unprecedented.”

Sgt. Bishop went on to say that his plans after release are to see his family and friends and then “to try to start this new life that I’ve been granted. I think it is safe to say my life has been completely changed by this. I won’t be going to what my life was like before. Lots of changes are in store for me.” Sgt. Bishop said he hopes to continue to speak out against war and will be returning to Texas to pursue a career as a country musician.

Sgt. Bishop also said he had no regrets and that he urges others who are feeling moral conflicts with war to follow their conscience, but to not wait as long as he did to get help.

According to Mr. Branum, there are many who had a role in securing Sgt. Bishop’s early release. These people include:

* Jeff Paterson, Sarah Lazare and everyone else at Courage to Resist
* Chuck Luther (fearless G.I. Advocate and head of Disposablewarriors.com),
* CPT Glendening with the US Army Trial Defense Services (trial co-counsel)
* Cynthia Thomas (director of the Under the Hood G.I. Coffee house in Killeen),
* Victor Agosto (fellow Afghanistan war resister)
* Michael Kern, and the rest of the Fort Hood chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War,
* the many Texans who traveled to Fort Hood to attend Travis’ trial and to protest in the weeks he was being held in the Bell County jail,
* Dahr Jamail and Eric Thompson (who provided compelling first-hand account reporting from the trial),
* Legrand Jones (post-trial co-counsel at Fort Lewis),
* the London office of Amnesty International,
* Seth Manzell (director of Coffee Strong, the GI coffee house at Fort Lewis),
* Gerry Condon, president of Greater Seattle Veterans For Peace, and all of the other local supporters of Travis in the Tacoma-Seattle area,
* the 538 people who wrote letters of support for Travis
* the many people who have written letters to Travis while he has been in the brig at Fort Lewis.”

Supporters of Sgt. Bishop are urged to continue to write him (instructions on how to do this can be found at www.couragetoresist.org) and also to donate to help cover his post-trial defense costs (you can do this at http://www.couragetoresist.org/travis/)

###

For more information or to schedule an interview about this subject, please contact James Branum (lead defense counsel for Mr. Bishop, 405-476-5620) or Cynthia Thomas (Director of the Under the Hood G.I. Coffee house, 254-768-8300). Fort Lewis Brig policies generally forbid inmates from doing interviews with the press, but you are welcome to see if an exception can be made by contacting the Fort Lewis Public affairs office at (253)967-0147 or (253)967-0152.

So, in our phone calls we’ve been brainstorming on if there is any other way we can lobby for Travis’ release from prison (the formal 1105 clemency application will likely not be heard for another month), and I think we’ve come to an idea that is worth doing.

We are asking that supporters of Travis send a Christmas card to Fort Hood Commander, Lt. General Robert W. Cone. (if anyone wrote the CG earlier as part of the Amnesty International letter drive, there has been a change in general since then)

In the card, please express your holiday greetings and then ask Lt. General Cone to release Travis Bishop from confinement. Please keep the notes on the card polite and preferably short. If you are a religious person, please feel free to remind the General that the Christmas holiday celebrates the birth of Jesus, the Prince of Peace, and that Travis in prison for following the teachings of Jesus.

Please send your cards to:

Lt. General Robert W. Cone
Commanding General
III Corps HQ
1001 761st Tank Battalion Ave.
Bldg. 1001, Room W105
Fort Hood, TX 76544-5005

After you do that, please send a Christmas card or letter to Travis. His address is:

David Travis Bishop
Box 339536
Fort Lewis, WA 98433

Note that the Army will likely reject your first letter, and maybe your second also. Please keep trying to send Travis mail as he really wants to hear from you. When your letter is rejected, sometimes Travis gets to see the envelope. If so, he is then able to add your name to his approved correspondence list.

Thanks & Happy Holidays!

Hello friends and supporters of Travis Bishop,

The record of trial will soon be authenticated by the court-martial judge, which means that we will soon have the deadline approaching to submit post-trial matters 1105 matters.

In layman’s terms, this means that before the Lt. General Cone (commanding General of Fort Hood) approves the court-martial results and sentence, we get to present whatever documents and other materials to him in mitigation in hopes that he will reduce Travis’ sentence.

Travis has written a personal letter to the CG (which can be read here: page 1 and page 2). Along with that will be evidence of the mistreatment Travis has suffered at the Fort Lewis Brig, and HUNDREDS of letters from around the world from members of Amnety International (see Amnesty International’s statement declaring Travis Bishop a prisoner of conscience).

We have one problem though… we don’t have enough letters from Americans!

I know that is a funny thing to say, but I think we need some letters from people right here in the USA asking for Travis to be released early, and preferably some from veterans. We do have some letters from the USA, but not near enough.

So, I’m asking all supporters of Travis Bishop to sit down now and write a letter to Lt. General Cone asking for Travis Bishop to be released early. It doesn’t have to be long, but it should be respectful and heartfelt.

If you have time handwrite it or to at least sign it with a pen, that is ideal. If you can do that, please fax it to me at 1-866-757-8785 or scan your letter and then email it to me at girightslawyer(at)gmail(dot)com. (If you can’t email or fax it, then you can mail it to me but I would recommend against it as the deadline is so close. If you must mail it though, send it to: James M. Branum Attorney at Law, 3334 W. Main St. #412, Norman, OK 73072)

If you don’t have time to handwrite it, please don’t let that stop you from writing an email. Just write what you want to say in email form, addressing it Lt. General Cone and them email it to me at: girightslawyer(at)gmail(dot)com.

Time is of the essence. While we could ask for an extension on the 10 day deadline (the clock starts running once the judge authenticates the record, which I expect will happen on Monday), I don’t want to do that, because the sooner we submit the packet, the sooner the General can respond to it. And if a miracle happens, I would love to see Travis get out in time for Christmas!

So, to give myself enough time to compile the packet, I’m asking that all letters of support be sent by Monday, December 14th.

Lastly, I understand some local peace groups have circulated petitions calling for Travis’ release. Please send fax or scan/email those petitions to me by December 14th as well.

Thanks!
James M. Branum
Attorney for Travis Bishop

P.S. Courage to Resist is still supporting Travis for his post-trial case. If you would like to donate for Travis’ legal defense costs, please go to: Couragetoresist.org/travis

In accordance with NWJRCF and Army policies, we must say that this blog entry is an expression of Travis’ own opinions and does not represent in any way the views of the U.S. Army (as if Travis would say anything the Army would be down with).

The blog entry itself is hand-written by Travis, so I decided to just scan the pages as PDF’s that you can download and read. I’m too busy with case work to type it up, but if someone could take the time to download the PDF’s and type up what Travis said, I would love to repost it here (just email me if any of y’all have time to type it up)

• Page 1 of “Time to Wake Up” by Travis Bishop
• Page 2 of “Time to Wake Up” by Travis Bishop
• Page 3 of “Time to Wake Up” by Travis Bishop
• Page 4 of “Time to Wake Up” by Travis Bishop