On Monday, 5 February, a military court-martial was convened at Fort Lewis, Washington, for Army officer, 1LT Ehren Watada, who refused to serve in Iraq last summer.
The story goes that when he found out his unit was going to deploy, he heavily researched Iraq and the reasons why the United States went to war. Based on this research, he came to the conclusion that this war was illegal and immoral and he attempted to resign his commission. His resignation was declined and when his unit deployed, he refused to go. He also made numerous public statements denouncing the war.
He stated the he believed that “under military law those in the military are allowed to refuse — in fact, have the right to refuse unlawful orders — a duty to refuse.”
Because of his actions, the military has leveled the following charges against him:
- conduct unbecoming an officer (for statements made in speeches and interviews) (Article 133)
- missing movement (for refusing to deploy to Iraq on June 22) (Article 87)
- contempt toward officials (in this case, President Bush) (Article 88)
He could face up to four years in prison and be dishonorably discharged if convicted on all counts.
The case has become a rallying point for antiwar groups, and scores of Lieutenant Watada’s supporters waved signs on Monday at a highway overpass outside Fort Lewis.
1LT Watada is not the first soldier that has faced discipline for refusing to serve in Iraq, but he is the first officer to refuse to do so publicly. Since the beginning of the war, more than 7,900 members of the military have deserted, though this is a small fraction of the hundreds of thousands who have served.
So what do you think Gather members, should the military throw the book at this guy? Was his actions justified?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 97
If youi make a promise to your country, you are required to follow through.
Hopefully he will be convicted and locked up for the maximum length of time!
Posterity will honor, 1LT Watada.
"I was just following orders." Where did I hear that before?
Watada was the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq. He joined the military in March 2003. He believed President Bush's claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, connections to 9/11 and al-Qaida, and that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States.
After signing on, he studied intensively to be well prepared to lead troops in Iraq. His studies, and the daily news coming out of Iraq of civilian deaths and no WMD, led him to the conclusion that the war was not only immoral, but also illegal.
On June 6, 2006, Watada said: "My moral and legal obligation is to the Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders. ... As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must, as an officer of honor and integrity, refuse that order."
He refused to deploy. The Army charged Watada with missing the troop movement, contempt toward officials and conduct unbecoming an officer. Watada hoped that his court-martial would be a hearing on the legality of the war. He was not claiming conscientious objection; rather, he says, he simply refused an illegal order. He offered to resign his commission. He offered to serve in Afghanistan. The Army refused his offers. A military judge ruled Watada cannot present evidence challenging the war's legality or explain what motivated him to resist his deployment order.
On our "Democracy Now!" news hour, Watada said of his upcoming Feb. 5 court-martial, "it will be a non-trial. It will not be a fair trial or a show of justice. I think that they will simply say: 'Was he ordered to go? Yes. Did he go? No. Well, he's guilty.' "
Several journalists to whom Watada spoke were subpoenaed in order to testify, first at his pretrial hearing, then at the court-martial. The journalists fought back, and in each case, the Army backed down. Sarah Olson, one of the independent journalists involved, said, "I am glad the growing number of dissenting voices within the military will retain their rights to speak with reporters."
Dissent within the military against the war in Iraq is growing. Iraq Veterans Against the War has quadrupled in size in the past year. More than 1,200 soldiers have signed on to an "Appeal for Redress," with which active-duty soldiers can appeal to Congress for an end to the war with legal protections against retaliation from the military. The appeal simply reads:
"As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home."
Sgt. Ronn Cantu signed the Appeal for Redress, which soldiers can do confidentially online at appealforredress.org. In a "Democracy Now!" exclusive, Cantu spoke to us over a crackly cell-phone connection from the front lines in Iraq: "I'm scared out of my mind right now. ... It's a belief of the soldiers I've talked to that any troop increase over here, it's just going to be more sitting ducks, more targets."
Since Watada and other active-duty resisters are facing years in military prison, I recently asked two of the most progressive members of the new Senate, Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, what Congress could do for the soldiers facing court-martial. Both replied, "I don't know." As Congress wrangles over non-binding resolutions condemning Bush's war-making -- or as he calls it, his "surge" -- these brave young patriots are making binding decisions.
Without Congress taking decisive action, these soldiers are left to fend for themselves. How many must die, how many must be sent to prison or flee to Canada, before Congress ends this war?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/301877_amy01.html
The people running the Iraq war are eager to make an example of Ehren Watada. They've convened a kangaroo court-martial. But the man on trial is setting a profound example of conscience -- helping to undermine the war that the Pentagon's top officials are so eager to protect.
"The judge in the case against the first U.S. officer court-martialed for refusing to ship out for Iraq barred several experts in international and constitutional law from testifying Monday about the legality of the war," the Associated Press reported.
While the judge was hopping through the military's hoops at Fort Lewis in Washington state, an outpouring of support for Watada at the gates reflected just how broad and deep the opposition to this war has become.
The AP dispatch merely stated that "outside the base, a small group that included actor Sean Penn demonstrated in support of Watada." But several hundred people maintained an antiwar presence Monday at the gates, where a vigil and rally -- led by Iraq war veterans and parents of those sent to kill and be killed in this horrific war -- mirrored what is happening in communities across the United States.
Many of the most compelling voices against the Iraq war come from the men and women who were ordered into a conflagration that should never have begun. Opinions may be debatable, but experiences are irrefutable. And the devastating slaughter that the U.S. war effort continues to inflict on Iraqi people has a counterpoint in the suffering of Americans who are left with unspeakable grief.
In direct resistance to the depravity of the Bush administration as it escalates this war, Lieutenant Watada is taking a clear and uplifting position. Citing international law and the U.S. Constitution, he points out that the Iraq war is "manifestly illegal." And he adds: "As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order. It is my duty not to follow unlawful orders and not to participate in things I find morally reprehensible."
Watada says: "My participation would make me party to war crimes."
Outside the fence at Fort Lewis -- while the grim farce of Watada's court-martial proceeded with virtually all substance ruled out of order -- the criminality of the war and the pain it has brought were heavy in the air.
Darrell Anderson was a U.S. soldier in Iraq. He received a Purple Heart. Later, he refused orders to return for a second tour of duty. Now, he gives firsthand accounts of the routine killing of Iraqi civilians. He speaks as an eyewitness and a participant in a war that is one long war crime. And he makes a convincing case that "the GI resistance" is emerging and pivotal: "You can't call yourself antiwar if you're not supporting the resistance."
At Fort Lewis, outside the gates, I met Carlos Arredondo. He's traveling the country in a long black hearse-like station wagon, with big photos and letters from his son Alexander plastered on the sides of the vehicle. At age 20, more than two years ago, Alexander died in Iraq. Now, a conversation with Carlos Arredondo is likely to leave you in tears, feeling his grief and his rage against this war.
"When the Marines came to inform Arredondo of his son's death and stayed after he asked them to leave, he set their van on fire, burning over a quarter of his body in the process," the Boston Globe has reported. Carlos and his wife Melida Arredondo are now members of Military Families Speak Out.
Among the speakers at a nearby event the night before Watada's court-martial began was Helga Aguayo, whose husband Agustin Aguayo is a U.S. Army medic now charged with desertion. After deployment to Iraq in 2004, he applied for recognition as a conscientious objector, without success. During a year in the war zone, he refused to put ammunition in his weapon. Today, he is looking at the prospect of up to seven years in prison.
Many others in uniform are struggling to extricate themselves from the war machine. Information about some of them is available at: www.couragetoresist.org.
Soldiers have to choose from options forced upon them by the commander in chief and Congress. Those who resist this war deserve our gratitude and our support. And our willingness to resist as well.
Ehren Watada faces four years in prison. Half of that potential sentence has to do with the fact that he made public statements against the war. The war-makers want such honest courage to stop. But it is growing every day.
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0206-32.htm
Just out of curiousity, are you still active duty?
Geoffrey,
He hasn't had to make a single decision concerning what you stated. He hasn't been there yet.
You said:
How often do we really question our actions and the actions of government?
There can be nothing harder than deciding to disobey an order, knowing the consequences.
Whether or not we agree with his decisions, we should respect the soul-searching that brought him to it.
Fuck him, he knew the consequences and knew damn well he would have to serve in a combat capacity.....
You respect his soul searching, Me, I'd like to be on the firing squad.......
I will say though that it is now different in the way we face a faceless enemy. One that is not easily defined or best dealt with by conventional force. If in fact the Army is recruiting our best and brightest, this soldier should have surely known that the world had changed and it wasn't his grandfather's war he might have to fight. One would think he would have thought twice about enlistment if this had ever passed through his mind.
HONEST COURAGE MY ASS.......
HONEST COWARDESS............YEP..............
Subordination of the military to political authority means that the responsibility and the authority for going to war rests with the political leadership. Notice that this limits the military in a number of ways. On one hand, the guardians of the state (the soldiers) cannot make decisions regarding either going to war or negotiating for peace without the authority of their political constituency. Such actions would be morally and legally wrong. Thus Plato, for example, writing 2500 years ago, subscribed to the idea that generals who either go to war or negotiate peace without the approval of the political establishment should be executed.
On the other hand, subordination to properly constituted civil authority means that military professionals can't refuse to go when the political establishment orders them to do so. Again, such actions are morally and legally wrong.
In many countries, this separation between political and military decisionmaking is considered so important that soldiers are not even allowed to vote.
If you look at his picture, you'll see on the collar or what ever you call that part of the fucking jacket, "Crossed rifles" that is, for officers the designation for Infantry....You do have a choice, just the same as enlisted personel. He obviously made the wrong choice.....
Once again......Sorry, no cigar for the LT.......
"He was not claiming conscientious objection; rather, he says, he simply refused an illegal order. He offered to resign his commission. He offered to serve in Afghanistan. The Army refused his offers. A military judge ruled Watada cannot present evidence challenging the war's legality or explain what motivated him to resist his deployment order."
I don't give a crap if he's a coward or not...that's not the issue here. This is a criminal war...it is illegal and morally wrong...Watada is correct in refusing to be a part of something illegal and to follow illegal orders.
Watada knows he's going to go to jail. That's pre-determined, but, his hands are free of innocent blood. This war of choice was deemed illegal at it's inception and will be deem illegal when it ends. Enjoy all the blood-letting while it last. Someday they'll be some answering to do.
That's bullshit and you know it.
The fact that he's a coward IS THE ISSUE HERE. He doesn't have the right as a soldier to make that determination and unless you've been one, you have no idea how the UCMJ works. You can drum up all the drama from the press you want, but the fact still remains that unless you study and know the articles (UCMJ) don't speak on what he can or can not do.
Sorry Sis, this is one subject we don't need disscussion on...I'm stedfast and unmovable concerning this.....4yrs....Pssst.....40 maybe.....FIRNG SQUAD DEFINITELY!!!!!!!!!
Sandy, perhaps it requires a matter of conscience before becoming an officer.
"As the Nuremberg Tribunal put it, "To initiate a war of aggression" is " the supreme international crime."
Unfortunately, as Americans love their bread and circuses so much, the only hope for any restraint on the reckless militarism of the United States might be in the example set by the rare courage of the soldier from Hawai'i, Lt. Ehren Watada, who faces court martial for refusing deployment to Iraq. The military judge presiding over the court martial has, however, denied the attempt by Lt. Watada's defense to 'put the war on trial.' The ruling by military circuit judge Lt. Col. John M. Head on January 16 denied the defense motion for a hearing on the "Nuremburg defense" thus preventing Watada's defense from presenting evidence on the legality of the war. The highest ranking soldier to refuse deployment to Iraq, Lt. Watada has argued in his defense that according to the Nuremberg Principles and U.S. military regulations he was under oath to follow only "lawful orders" and that the war on Iraq is illegal under international treaties and under Article Six of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Watada's trial at Fort Lewis, Washington is set to begin on February 5.
The ruling by Judge Head conflicts with the statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, that the United States must be bound by the same rule of law used to prosecute the Germans: "If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us." The Nuremberg trials established that soldiers are not immune from prosecution for war crimes just because they were following orders. The judgement at Nuremberg means that the common view held by Judge Head and apparently many Americans that "soldiers like Lt. Watada can't pick and choose when to fight" is just flat out wrong. In denying the "Nuremberg defense" the military is simply setting aside the judgement at Nuremberg and ignoring Justice Jackson's explicit statement.
The nation would be stronger not weaker if it recognized Lt. Watada's right to refuse deployment to an illegal war. If Lt. Watada's action is recognized as right, the nation would be far less prone to engage in unnecessary and immoral wars. In refusing deployment to Iraq Lt. Watada is serving the country with his conscience, and in so doing, is giving the highest service. If Lt. Watada goes to prison, as seems now very likely, he will be a powerful symbol of the injustice of the nation and its shame in ignoring the judgement at Nuremberg and refusal to remember Justice Jackson's counsel.
http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/391/2/
The International Criminal Court was established to try war crimes. Henry Kissinger wrote in alarm in 2001 that "in less than a decade an unprecedented movement has emerged to submit international politics to judicial procedures" and has "spread with extraordinary speed."
Critical to this unprecedented movement has been an evolved relationship between national and international law. In the past, international law was seen as a potential infringement on national sovereignty. (The Bush administration is trying to resuscitate that view—for example, in its attacks on the International Criminal Court.) But today the two are increasingly intertwined and mutually reinforcing, much like state and national law in the United States. Many new democracies see institutions like the International Criminal Court as bulwarks against the restoration of tyranny in their own countries—much as the U.S. Constitution guarantees that its member states will be republics, not monarchies. Toward this end, many countries have incorporated aspects of international law into their national statutes—the U.S. War Crimes Act, for example, makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions a crime under U.S. law, punishable in some cases by death.
Several overlapping strands have coalesced into a body of law regarding war crimes. One is the prohibition on aggressive war. As the Nuremberg Tribunal put it, "To initiate a war of aggression" is " the supreme international crime." A second strand is humanitarian law, which protects both combatants and civilians from unnecessary harm during war. The devastation associated with World War II led to the recognition of "crimes against humanity," which involve acts of violence against a persecuted group. War crimes were codified in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and have been further developed in subsequent protocols and agreements.
The Nuremberg Tribunal was criticized on the grounds that it represented not impartial justice but "victor's justice," that it provided impunity for the bombing of civilians and other heinous acts committed by the victors, and that it prosecuted people "ex post facto" for acts that had not been declared crimes when they were committed. These charges had considerable justification. But today there is a body of national and international law that clearly defines war crimes and a set of procedures for applying them comparable to the procedures used to judge other crimes. Those are the standards by which allegations of American war crimes must be judged.
Law must—and the international law of war crimes now does—provide a single standard of judgment that can be applied without discrimination to different cases. If an act is a war crime, then it is a war crime whether it is perpetrated by Saddam Hussein or by George Bush.
American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond
The charge that the U.S. attack on Iraq was a war crime was raised even before the war began. More than 1,000 law professors and U.S. legal institutions organized in opposition to the U.S. war crime of launching an "aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter" against Iraq. Violation of international law was also a central theme in worldwide demonstrations against the war. The attack on the illegality of the war has been revived by the leak of the Downing Street memo; 130 members of Congress joined Rep. John Conyers in demanding that the Bush administration come clean about the invasion—supported by a half million citizen signatures gathered in barely a week. "Scootergate" is fundamentally about the cover-up of White House lies justifying the war.
Illegal detention and torture are also war crimes. Starting with the exposure of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, cascading revelations have established that these cases exemplify a pattern of abuse authorized at the highest levels of government. Human rights groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Human Rights First sued in U.S. and foreign courts against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others for breaching the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. The Senate's 90-9 vote to restore the military's traditional prohibition against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners—prompting the Bush administration to threaten a veto—sets the stage for a major confrontation over adherence to both the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution.
Despite massive cover-ups, the evidence is emerging: the Bush administration planned an illegal war of aggression against Iraq, conned the American people and their representatives into supporting it, conducted an illegal occupation marked by massive violation of Iraqi human rights, and justified and promoted systematic torture. Now the White House seeks opportunities for further criminal attacks against Iran, Syria, and other countries around the world, issuing threats to use death squads and nuclear weapons at will. These acts violate American law, international law, and the basic values of the American people. They are crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. They are outlawed by the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, and treaties against torture and other human rights abuses. They are war crimes, and those who ordered and condoned them are war criminals. "
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/2970
As of yet in any court of law be it international or American has this war been proven to be in any way, shape or form ILLEGAL. You can quote doctrine all you want, but the fact still remains, and has since his cowardace has surfaced, that no one/country has deemed this war ILLEGAL to the point where it could stand trial and the US be "Convicted" so to speak....
Go tell Hillary....I hate Bush, but your arguement is moot......Read the UCMJ........
What part of VOLUNTEER Don't you understand???
As far as the administration is concerned, you and I both know they will never answer to/for this shit...Hey, what can we say they got over on us...Fuck Bush, but really he fucked us....So who won?
Lizzie-Lady, better get an extra box of ammo to bring...Jacks my favorite so pick a half gallon up on your way down here, please.
Felix...the military is NOT about choices...It is plain and simple, once you swear in you go where they order you, when they order you, when they say jump..you jump, when they say shit..you say "What color, Sir?"
"refused an illegal order." "This is a criminal war...it is illegal and morally wrong...Watada is correct in refusing to be a part of something illegal and to follow illegal orders."
Here, Felix, I have to ask you what legal standing do you base your statement of "illegal order", and criminal war?
The order to deploy was a legal order which he chose to disobey. Criminal? Plainly, more peacenic, "Hanoi Jane" bullshit!
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian
"International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
"I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal."
20 August 2002
IRAQ WAR IS ILLEGAL
EXCLUSIVE: Own lawyers will warn off Blair on Iraq
By Oonagh Blackman, Deputy Political Editor
TONY Blair will be told next month that a war to topple Saddam Hussein would be illegal.
A clutch of top-level legal reports will land on the Premier's desk ahead of a showdown over Iraq at Labour's annual conference in September.
The message will be that conflict with Iraq will breach international law.
Party MPs, some ministers and union leaders are already in revolt over plans to send British troops into a US-led war.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12130244&method=full&siteid=50143
Iraq War Is Illegal, says Annan
By Sridhar Krishnaswami
UNITED NATIONS, SEPT. 16. Nearly 18 months after the U.S.-led war against Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, the U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has termed the invasion as "illegal'' that contravened the world body's charter.
-BBC
Anyone in doubt about the legality of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq must hear Judge Richard Goldstone. "It is unlawful and morally unjustifiable," he has ruled. Judge Goldstone has impeccable credentials to back his judgement. Among his many honorary doctorates, he is a leading authority, in fact one of the world's most respected authorities on international law.
He is currently a judge of South Africa's Constitutional Court, the highest court in the land. He has also served as the chief prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia. Among his stock of achievements is an international human rights award by the American Bar Association.
In a recent frank interview with The Sunday Times and Sunday Tribune of South Africa, Judge Goldstone said,
"Iraqi war is illegal and morally wrong": "if the only superpower regards itself as above the law, then it has the potential of releasing everybody from the law."
http://goliath.ecnext.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl?pdlanding=1&referid=2750&item_id=0199-2901432
"I think that the government has successfully proved that any service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal." -- Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant, presiding at Pablo Paredes' court-martial
In a stunning blow to the Bush administration, a Navy judge gave Petty Officer 3rd Class Pablo Paredes no jail time for refusing orders to board the amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard before it left San Diego with 3,000 sailors and Marines bound for the Persian Gulf on December 6th. Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant found Pablo guilty of missing his ship's movement by design, but dismissed the charge of unauthorized absence. Although Pablo faced one year in the brig, the judge sentenced him to two months' restriction and three months of hard labor, and reduced his rank to seaman recruit.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7918
Watada's position is based on conscience not on cowardice...he was willing to fight and if need be die for his country in Afghanistan...but, not in Iraq. Were he a coward he would have refused combat altogether.
Watada's position is based (right or wrong) on conscience...not cowardice. It takes more courage to stand alone than to just tag along with the crowd and in this case the whole military industrial complex. Watada is a conscientious man and he made the morally correct decision. Time will prove him right.
I fully support, Watada, I have spoken my peace on his behalf...the thread is your's...I'm outta here.
"According to the Nuremberg Principles and U.S. military regulations he was under oath to follow only "lawful orders" and that the war on Iraq is illegal under international treaties and under Article Six of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Watada's trial at Fort Lewis, Washington is set to begin on February 5.
The ruling by Judge Head conflicts with the statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, that the United States must be bound by the same rule of law used to prosecute the Germans: "If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us." The Nuremberg trials established that soldiers are not immune from prosecution for war crimes just because they were following orders. The judgement at Nuremberg means that the common view held by Judge Head and apparently many Americans that "soldiers like Lt. Watada can't pick and choose when to fight" is just flat out wrong. In denying the "Nuremberg defense" the military is simply setting aside the judgement at Nuremberg and ignoring Justice Jackson's explicit statement. "
Even your' fellow war hawk, Richard Perle, knows that it's illegal. In fact, every one and their' mother knows this war is illegal.
"Felix...the military is NOT about choices...It is plain and simple, once you swear in you go where they order you, when they order you, when they say jump..you jump, when they say shit..you say "What color, Sir?"
Thoreau might agree with that and also with me:
"The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, &c. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw of a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, —as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and officer-holders; —serve the state chiefly with their heads; and as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the Devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it." (Henry David Thoreau, "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience", 1848.)
Thoreau is clearly right that it is plainly wrong to think that the highest service one can give to one's country is to serve blindly with one's body, even if it means giving one's life. To serve without conscience, as a mere weapon of war, is really to forsake what is highest and most human within us. To force our soldiers to surrender their conscience is not only to ignore the judgement at Nuremberg, it is also treating our soldiers like horses and dogs. Sending our troops into an unnecessary and immoral war is in fact treating them far worse than horses and dogs.
I've presented sources and facts...the only bullshit is coming from you...so spare me it.
I'm through here.
I do feel this war is illegal under international law, and can sympathize with this man's dilemma, but he swore to uphold the constitution of the United States, not international laws. I see no reason to call him a coward, or immoral. He made a decision and surely not an easy one.
War is nasty business, and there are casualties of many sorts. Let's hope and pray we NEVER forget that again.
The moral issue of the war is another subject entirely and that is not why he is being tried.
To date no international court has brought any charges of the alleged "illegality" of the war. All you have pointed out is opinion...you know what they say about opinion..."it is like assholes...everyone has one"...though in some caes some are just bigger than others.
FYI...a warhawk? I have to laugh at that! I have never been for the war in Iraq and never will be. Bush is an idiot and we should have never gone in there.
I do agree that throughout history war has been waged over some form of monetary gain...be it land, oil, or industrial growth. And to a certain extend I think that it is the "unseen" power brokers who instigate alot of world conflict.
Goeffrey, if you have ever served in the military and in combat then you might better understand Todd's feelings of disgust of Watada's actions. He chose to serve knowing combat was a distinct possibility. He failed those men of his unit as a leader and that is in the eyes of most vets a truly disgraceful act.
I have not found any information on how long Watada has been on active duty but I have to say that anyone who joins the military surely has enough sense to understand that all the training is to prepare for combat and that the possibility of combat is always there, particularily for an infantry office.
The man is being tried for failure to obey a "lawful order" which for the military, as you well know, does not have the same meaning to the world of civilians. Colonel Head was right to clearly define the charges. The issue of the "legality" or morality of the war is not within the scope of the trial nor that military court.
This scenario will be played out soon. I do not look forward to it, but it is an inevitability.
Those who oppose what is going on in Iraq have are trying to use this mans court-marshall as a condemnation of Bush and the war. Personally, I disagree with war. It is a war just like Viet Nam. Our military has not been allowed to fight to win; had we gone in to win, this all would have been over long ago and our troops would be home. Now the entire mess has degenerated into a religious war, and there is no way in hell we will ever settle those differences which have existed for ...what a couple of thousand years?
The man volunteered for service, he swore the oath, he went to infantry school, and he accepted training as an officer (he could have turned that option down). Surely a man intelligent enough to succeed in those areas understood from day one that at some point in his career that he might be ordered to combat. I have no knowledge how long he had served before the recieved his orders to deploy but I do question his motivation for waiting UNTIL he did get those orders. Why did he wait until then before objecting? Why did he volunteer for military service at all? Why is it that when he gets the orders to deploy with his unit to Iraq that suddenly he is so "moral?" IF he is so "moral" then why did he swear the oaths when he joined and became an officer? Why did he accept the responsibility to lead his men, as an infantry officer, in combat?
Army, as much as I disagree with the war, I have to ask how can it be illegal when our own Congress and President approved it? "Opinions" do not make it illegal. A legal decision and declaration from the World Court might make the war illegal but to date that simply has not happened.
"FORT LEWIS, Wash. (AP) - The judge overseeing the court martial of an Army lieutenant who refused to deploy to Iraq declared a mistrial today, saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges.
Military judge Lt. Col. John Head announced the decision after 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, of Honolulu, said he never intended to admit he had a duty to go to Iraq with his fellow soldiers _ one element of the crime of missing troop movement.
First Lt. Ehren Watada was fighting charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and missing movement for refusing to leave last June with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division."
The mistrial on procedural grounds means that the US military doesn't want to confront the Nuremberg principle.
Now, obviously the Army fucked up. But the point being is this. He is a 1LT not a 2LT, I don't remember exactly the time in grade/service requirements for officers when it comes to promotions, it's been over 20 yrs. I do know this. He was in the Military in a COMBAT branch (Infantry) he chose this, was in for at least 3yrs more than likely 4-5 in order to make it to 1LT and just all of a sudden he MISUNDERSTOOD, what he signed or what was going to happen... A college graduate, misinterpreted what he was getting into?...That is pure unadulterated bullshit.
That would have been the same as when I joined and purposely enlisted under the "Airborne Ranger" Option....Then getting to Airborne school and saying, "What, you mean I gotta jump outta planes".....Gimme a break, he knew all along.
He taking advantage of the shift in public opinion and figuring that exactly what is happening would happen....All the bleeding-heart Liberals are coming out of the woodwork and saying he's being unfairly treated and exposing bullshit like it's his "Duty" to stand up against the Govt. Until it's been legally declared by International Law, not just written, but DECLARED and the US and been CONVICTED...The war is as legal as it gonna get and he deserves to go to JAIL....Well, worse than that, but JAIL will work....
Considering his rank, the time frame of his enlistment coincides with the war and I'm know without a doubt from day one his training was geared toward his assuming a Plt Ldr position in a combat Div....He knew it....PERIOD!!!!
A man who is willing to stand up and accept the consequences.
Those who join the military have to trust that their leaders (especially the president) would chose wisely when to jeopardise their lives and souls. This president has not done this.
This war is immoral and illegal!
Todd you can judge him all you want, but his soul is still intact.
I have absolutely no respect for someone who goes out and kills on orders knowing that it is the wrong thing to do. That is murder.
Following orders is no excuse.
"The mistrial on procedural grounds means that the US military doesn't want to confront the Nuremberg principle." Your crystal ball must be a bit cloudy on this one. The court gave him the benefit of the doubt when he said he did not understand what he signed admitted what he did. How you can read what the military does not want to confront from that is absurd.
Diana, that is exactly why the judge declared a mistrial...giving the man the benefit of the doubt, although I have to wonder how, as I said earlier, a man with the intelligence to accomplish what he has could possible NOT understand what he admitted.
Thank you for the IF!
I'd sure hate to be in the position of following orders that I thought were likely to result in war crimes prosecution.
It's pretty easy to infer that the military took an easy way out in the court martial. In the case of a mentally competent person it's not easy to believe that he really didn't fully understand what he'd signed unless it was a legal document that only a lawyer who specializes in that type of document could understand.
It may be that the military just wanted to avoid the publicity that the court martial would get at a time when opposition to the war is a highly popular point of view. You can bet that had the trial continued refusing to carry out illegal orders would have been part of the defense.
That war was "legal" according to German law, and by deploying one could not be clearly called a war criminal. Yet, such a refusal can still be understood as a morally justifiable action. It can also be argued that a moral stance might lead one to deploy, on the grounds that the presence of principled persons in such an army will insure a greater adherence to ethical standards, and we surely do not want armies of insensitive robots marching about in unquestioning obedience to any man. It is not within our power, as human beings, to judge such a difficult decision. When this most Pandoran of boxes called war is opened, all manner of wicked thing is loosed, and all manner of courage is tested. Let each one answer to the highest voice they can hear calling, and save their judgement for themselves.
I think it would be wise to bear in mind the implications of condemning this man as a coward, or hero, or other hasty conclusions as to his motivations. I have a hard time believing that if we were discussing a German soldier's refusal to be deployed to France in 1942 on similar grounds, we would be focusing on his potential cowardice.
We would never be discussing a German soldier's refusal to do anything...Because back then you would have never even heard about it, his commanding officer would have put a bullet between his eyes in front of the whole Company and dared them to say shit!!!
And if the Commander didn't Hitler would have shot them both!
The fact that such a man would be summarily executed in no way prevents us from discussing such a circumstance, which indeed you are. I don't doubt for an instant his fate would be sealed. Nor do I doubt he'd have been called a coward by the "hero" who ended his life.
He is wrong in my opinion, and does himself and the uniform no honor.
It's so comforting to know that such an intelligent, educated person like you has a gun, NOT!
I thank God the "just kill em all" approach is so studiously shunned by our armed forces. Great warriors have great hearts.