'Ehren Watada is a 27-year-old first lieutenant in the United States Army. He joined the Army in 2003, during the run-up to the Iraq war, and turned in his resignation to protest that same war in January of 2006. He expects to receive orders in late June. He is poised to become the first lieutenant to refuse to deploy to Iraq, setting the stage for what could be the biggest movement of GI resistance since the Vietnam War. He faces a court-martial, up to two years in prison for missing movement by design, a dishonorable discharge, and other possible charges. He says speaking against an illegal and immoral war is worth all of this and more...'www.truthout.org
In the interview, Watada says, "I alerted my commander this January, and told him I would refuse the order to go to Iraq. He asked me to think it over. After about a week, I said OK, I've made my decision. I've come to believe this is an illegal and an immoral war, and the order to have us deploy to Iraq is unlawful. I won't follow this order and I won't participate in something I believe is wrong.
My commanders told me that I could go to Iraq in a different capacity. I wouldn't have to fire a weapon and I wouldn't be in harm's way. But that's not what this is about. Even in my resignation letter I said that I would rather go to prison than do something that I felt was deeply wrong. I believe the whole war is illegal. I'm not just against bearing arms or fighting people. I am against an unjustified war."
Could the army really be offering soldiers against the war the option of not actually firing a gun? If so, the wheels are definitely coming off, aren't they? *************************************************************** 06-08-06, 02:50 PM Scotty
quote: Even in my resignation letter I said that I would rather go to prison than do something that I felt was deeply wrong
I think that he is going to get his rathers.
06-09-06, 09:26 PM GarColga Yep he is almost certainly going to prison.
Whatever your politics are we just can't have soldiers picking and choosing what deployments they will accept.
Good luck to him, though.
06-09-06, 09:49 PM newnickname On the other hand, soldiers shouldn't follow illegal orders.
06-09-06, 09:55 PM coldfuse This is completely beside the point, but I hope you don't mind my asking about the truthout organization. It seems to be referenced often. Is it an objective source of information or one with a clear bias? It's OK if it has one, I just want to know how balanced the information is.
06-09-06, 09:58 PM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: On the other hand, soldiers shouldn't follow illegal orders.
True enough, but I think Lt. Watada would be unable to convince any of the officers at his court-martial that the order to deploy to Iraq is an illegal order.
06-09-06, 10:31 PM methos 'Fuse - Truthout has a definite liberal agenda. I don't know how, or if, that affects its accuracy or its within-article objectivity, but it clearly affects which topics they report on.
06-09-06, 11:39 PM newnickname Most of the articles posted at truthout.com are from other media outlets (it's a useful way to access the New York Times and Washington Post, for example, without registering at their websites). The article at the top is one of the occasional pieces actually attributed to 'truthout' itself.
There is, of course, a leftish bias in the selection, which I'm sure isn't intended to be balanced.
GarColga - of course the official opinion of the US army is that the war in Iraq is legal. Watada is maybe taking a wider view.
06-10-06, 11:46 AM GarColga
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: GarColga - of course the official opinion of the US army is that the war in Iraq is legal. Watada is maybe taking a wider view.
Watada should have taken the 'wider view' before he joined the Army! We had already invaded Iraq when he joined. Now he is stuck with the only view available to him - the Army's view.
06-11-06, 02:54 PM Scotty
quote: quote: Originally posted by newnickname: On the other hand, soldiers shouldn't follow illegal orders.
True enough, but I think Lt. Watada would be unable to convince any of the officers at his court-martial that the order to deploy to Iraq is an illegal order.
Amen to that Gar!
07-07-06, 03:32 AM Kendor This guy should be strung up by his boot straps and flogged. And given no further media attention.
It's blatant disobedience, and the military shall have zero tolerance for such behavior; zero.
07-07-06, 09:54 AM newnickname 'Today, July 5, 2006, First Lieutenant Ehren K. Watada was formally charged with three articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: missing movement (Article 87), contempt towards officials (Article 88), and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman (Article 133). If convicted of all charges by a general court-martial, Lt. Watada could be sentenced to four years in a military prison.
Lt. Watada's lawyer, Eric Seitz, said this morning: "We expected the missing movement charge, but we are somewhat astounded by the contempt and conduct unbecoming charges. These additional charges open up the substance of Lt. Watada's statements for review and raise important First Amendment issues. We are delighted that the Army has given us the opportunity to litigate these questions." Most previous prosecutions of Article 88 took place during the Civil War and World War I, and the last known prosecution was in 1965 (Howe vs. US). Lt. Howe was protesting the Vietnam War...
..."It is my conclusion as an officer of the Armed Forces that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law. As the order to take part in a illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must, as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order," explained Lt. Watada." - www.truthout.org
07-07-06, 10:09 AM Scotty
quote: This guy should be strung up by his boot straps and flogged. And given no further media attention.
It's blatant disobedience, and the military shall have zero tolerance for such behavior; zero.
Affirmative! This guy, simply put, is a coward. All of this doing honorable stuff is a joke. He is a plain and simple coward that is afraid to go and serve. Period. Leavenworth is waiting.
07-07-06, 11:16 AM aminator2002 As much as I disagree with the war in Iraq, this guy signed up to be a soldier and he should go and do his job. He should continue to do his job until such time that his lawyer can prove this case about the war being illegal. Good luck on that.
We had a bunch of people deployed from Chicago the other day and the guys interviewed simply said "This is what we sign up for. We are eager to go and do our job." Well said. I don't think it's right to be over there, but the soldiers should be commended for the job that they are obligated to do.
07-07-06, 01:26 PM DorianGreyed Statement from Lt. Ehren Watada -
“It is my duty as a commissioned officer of the United States Army to speak out against grave injustices. My moral and legal obligation is to the Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders. I stand before you today because it is my job to serve and protect those soldiers, the American people, and innocent Iraqis with no voice.
“It is my conclusion as an officer of the Armed Forces that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law. Although I have tried to resign out of protest, I am forced to participate in a war that is manifestly illegal. As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an offficer of honor and integrity refuse that order.
“The war in Iraq violates our democratic system of checks and balances. It usurps international treaties and conventions that by virtue of the Constitution become American law. The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people with only limited accountability is not only a terrible moral injustice, but a contradiction of the Army’s own Law of Land Warfare. My participation would make me party to war crimes.
“Normally, those in the military have allowed others to speak for them and act on their behalf. That time has come to an end. I have appealed to my commanders to see the larger issues of our actions. But justice has not been forthcoming. My oath of office is to protect and defend America’s laws and its people. By refusing unlawful orders for an illegal war, I fulfill that oath today.” - Tacoma, Washington News Tribune. June 7th, 2006 -------- Interview with Lt. Watada, June 17, 2006 -
Lt. Watada joined the army in March of 2003, believing the administration that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Sadaam had strong ties to Al Queda and 911 He received his officers commission in December of the same year, served a year in Korea, and upon being redeployed back to the U.S., was informed that he would be deployed to Iraq within a year.
"At that time when I joined up I had no reason to believe that our leaders, the government, the administration would betray the trust of the people........I felt that it was my responsibility as an officer to find out everything I could about war in general in order to better prepare my troops and train them for combat deployment. I also began reading a whole broadbase of articles on the Iraq war on what was going on there at the time and what has led us up to that point. What I found was deeply shocking, not only as a person but also as a member of the military......learning that the administration had betrayed the trust of the people, had deceived us into going into this war that was totally unnecessary and unrelated to the war on terrorism."
Watadas reaction was one of shame, "knowing that our government was doing this in our name. I had to come to a decision on what I was going to do; inside I was in a lot of turmoil. On one hand I had my duty as I knew it, to obey every order without question, to do what I was told, what everyone else was doing, going over to Iraq and fight."
"On the other hand I knew that we were not fighting for Democracy, we were not fighting just terrorist, we were fighting an indigenous insurgency who was resisting our occupation. And many loves were being sacrificed for what I thought was nothing. I came to the point where I could no longer look at the pain and suffering of so many members of the armed forces, so many families being devastated by these loses, and the grief and suffering of Iraqi citizens and all for what I felt was an intentional deception, to wage a war without any purpose, without any noble purpose."
"So, I came to the point to where I believed as a person, not only as a human being, not only as a citizen of this country, but as a member of the military, that I could make a difference in helping to end this illegal war."
Watada first submitted a letter of resignation, giving the military the option to permit him to leave quietly, based on his convictions. They refused to do that. "They said it doesn't matter what your moral beliefs are or what your ideological beliefs, your commander in chief has commanded you to go and you're going to come and fight with us. You really have no choice in the matter."
I felt that I can better serve my soldiers under me, and all soldiers and all members of the military by speaking out against this administration in order to hold them accountable because if we don't, if we stand silent, as Americans, as members of the military, we give those who orchestrated this war leave to do the same, to commit more illegal acts, to violate more of our laws all in our name and to the detriment of our society and to the world."
"To whoever is watching this, the time has come to really stand up and sacrifice something to insure that true Democracy and true freedom are upheld within our own country. I would challenge anybody; I'm sacrificing my freedom, am willing to go to prisona and be hated by millions for my beliefs and what I believe in this country, and what we all hold as our beliefs as Americans.....What are you willing to sacrifice." - Rogue Valley Independent Media Center -------- An interesting precedent -
Navy petty officer Pablo Paredes was convicted and sentenced for missing movement stemming from his refusal to board the Iraq-bound ship USS Bonhomme Richard. The sentence included two months restriction, three months hard labor without confinement, and reduction in rank to E-1. The sentencing came the day after his conviction by a judge trial in a special court martial held May 11, 2005, at the 32nd Street Naval Station in San Diego. Below are some highlights from the case.
"What I "What I submit to you and the court is that I am convinced that the current war is exactly that (illegal). So, if there's anything I could be guilty of, it is my beliefs. I am guilty of believing this war is illegal. I'm guilty of believing war in all forms is immoral and useless, and I am guilty of believing that as a service member I have a duty to refuse to participate in this war because it is illegal." From Pablo Paredes statement during sentencing.
"I think the government has successfully proved that any seaman recruit has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal." - Lieutenant Commander Bob Klant (presiding judge at court martial) comments after a difficult cross examination (by the prosecution) of International Law expert Marjorie Cohn.
Cohn testified that the war in Iraq is illegal because it meets neither of the two standards incorporated into the United Nations Charter. The two standards are self-defense, collective or individual, and authorization by the Security Council. The U.N. Charter has been ratified by Congress and, thus, is the "law of the land," Cohn testified. She testified further that the overwhelming preponderance of opinion among international law experts is that the war in Iraq is illegal.
During a lengthy and testy cross-examination, Cohn was repeatedly asked by the prosecutor whether it was her opinion that "any seaman recruit" could decide for themselves whether such wars as Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal and, thus, have a duty not to serve in them. Cohn responded that none of those wars met either of the standards in the U.N. Charter that would confer legality upon them, and, so, were illegal. Since they were illegal under the Charter ratified by Congress, participation in them would constitute a violation of the "law of the land."
At the conclusion of Cohn's testimony, the judge, exasperated by the prosecutor's efforts, said, "I think the government has successfully proved that any seaman recruit has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal." -------- While I think the war in Iraq is immoral, and that we were intentionally lied to in order to raise support for the war, I had thought the war was legal, from a US standpoint; Congress, who has the sole authority under the Constitution to declare war, did authorize bush to use his judgement with regard to Iraq. However, both Cohn's statements and those of the judge, Lieutenant Commander Bob Klant, seem to indicate that the matter is not so cut-and-dried.
The issue seems not to be whether a member of the military can pick and choose which war to fight but rather whether he can be forced to participate in what may be an illegal action, according to US laws. I feel it necessary to point out that the oath taken by officers in the US military contains the words "...I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic..." but do not contain any reference to obeying the President or Commander-in-Chief. Only the oath taken by enlisted men swears to has the charge to follow orders of the President, and even then, it comes after swearing to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;".
In any case, if a man is willing to face the consequences of his actions, actions he deems to be moral, in order to stand by his beliefs, I don't think his courage is to be questioned. Others who have been willing to stand by their beliefs, regardless of the consequences, were Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. He seems to be in good company.
07-07-06, 02:03 PM Scotty That I Will Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States
To understand the opening pledge, one should know and understand the Constitution. Prior to taking their oath upon commission or reaffirming it upon promotion, too few officers take the time to read and study the document they swear to support and defend. The oath requires officers to support and defend the Constitution- not the president, not the country, not the flag, and not a particular military service. Yet, at the same time, the Constitution symbolizes the president, the country, the flag, the military, and much more. The preamble to the Constitution succinctly highlights the ideals represented by that document.20 Because the Constitution was built on a series of checks and balances that distribute power across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, officers must give their allegiance to all three entities- despite the fact that the chain of command leads to the presi-dent. These checks and balances create an inefficiency inherent in America’s democratic system that often proves frustrating for military officers, whose environment tries to provide the most efficient and effective fighting force available.
07-07-06, 02:45 PM DorianGreyed When you use the words of others, you really should give them credit, rather than allow it to appear that the words are your own. Where "Scotty's words" seem to have originated
More from the same site -
To understand the significance of the wording, one should compare the US oath to the Soviet version, the latter requiring officers “unquestioningly to carry out the requirements of all military regulations and orders of commanders and superiors.”25 It is a true blessing that America does not require its officers to obey “unquestioningly” but gives them the opportunity and flexibility for innovation. But with that flexibility come both responsibility and accountability for one’s actions.
You are right, Scotty, there is more to it than first meets the eye. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
07-07-06, 03:27 PM newnickname
quote: ...the Constitution symbolizes the president, the country, the flag, the military, and much more...
'Symbolizes'? That isn't right, is it? The Constitution defines the legal basis of the government of the country. The flag symbolizes things. How can the Constitution symbolize the flag?
07-07-06, 03:50 PM frankvan I don't think "symbolizes" is used correctly here, but obviously we would have to blame Lt.Col. Kenneth Keskel. U.S.A.F who penned that sentiment. Personally, I'm inclined to think that the Lieutenant displays considerable courage in standing up against authority in support of his convictions. He demonstrates his willingness to do what he conceives as right despite the consequences. On the other hand it doesn't require any courage at all to sit on the sidelines and accuse others of cowardice. He is, indeed, in good company.
07-07-06, 04:33 PM Scotty
quote: On the other hand it doesn't require any courage at all to sit on the sidelines and accuse others of cowardice. He is, indeed, in good company.
Some of us who sit on the sidelines have been in combat more than once, so we can sit in judgment, because we have been there. We recognize cowardice when we see it. Call it what you want, but it comes out to the same conclusion.
quote: You are right, Scotty, there is more to it than first meets the eye. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Thats right, I took the same oath, so I should know exactly what it means when you take it. The President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and every officer comes under his Command.
quote: When you use the words of others, you really should give them credit, rather than allow it to appear that the words are your own.
Oh! pardon me, Sire, I forgot to put it in quotes. Sue me. All you had to do was ask, and I would have been glad to provide the link, like I always do. Smile You always ASS U ME something before you know the facts.
07-07-06, 05:03 PM DorianGreyed You really don't get it.
07-07-06, 05:07 PM Scotty
quote: You really don't get it.
I actuall don't think that you do.
07-07-06, 06:32 PM DorianGreyed It seems that you prefer the wording of the Soviet oath rather than the US one, about which the site you linked to says, "...is a true blessing that America does not require its officers to obey 'unquestioningly' " So the man you quoted seems to disagree with you, as does Lieutenant Commander Bob Klant, the presiding judge at Paredes' court martial.
07-07-06, 07:01 PM frankvan It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare. Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Let bravery be thy choice, but not bravado. Menander (342 BC - 292 BC)
I still maintain that hurling insults from the cover of anonymity if far less courageous, (more cowardly) than standing up for an unpopular principle. But then, military service never succeeded in brainwashing me completely, and mine was a legal war declared by the congress. The Nazis followed their leaders blindly, but those found guilty of war crimes were unable to excuse themselves on the basis that they were "following orders" when those orders were unjustified or criminal.
07-08-06, 11:11 AM Scotty You simply cannot have Officers and members of the Armed Forces picking and choosing which wars that they decide to participate. You would have total chaos. Then again maybe this is the liberal agenda. To hell with the Country if it would hurt the current Administration.What kind of military would we have if its members were allowed to choose which wars they were going to fight?
Oh! By the way, this is not an illegal war. This is the first US military Officer that has refused to accept his duty to serve.
07-08-06, 01:52 PM DorianGreyed "You simply cannot have Officers and members of the Armed Forces picking and choosing which wars that they decide to participate."
Perhaps you should tell that to Lieutenant Commander Bob Klant, the presiding judge at the court martial of Navy petty officer Pablo Paredes. Apparently, the judge is confused and needs your advice.
"I think the government has successfully proved that any seaman recruit has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal." - Lieutenant Commander Klant, speaking during the court martial
Straighten him out, Scotty. He sounds like one of those activist judges we always hear about.
07-08-06, 02:36 PM DorianGreyed "This is the first US military Officer that has refused to accept his duty to serve. - Scotty
Wrong again.
"Jay Ferriola, 31, an Army Reserve captain from New York, served in South Korea and Germany, completed the terms of his contract, and resigned his commission in June. In October, he was ordered to return to active duty for 18 months, including time in Iraq. He sued, charging that the orders were a breach of contract and a violation of his constitutional right against involuntary servitude. He prevailed in court, earning a temporary stay of deployment. The Army later agreed to give him an honorable discharge" - Boston.com/news, December 6, 2004 ---
WASHINGTON - When Army Reserve Capt. Bradley E. Schwan sought to resign his commission last year, he thought that getting out of the Army would just be a matter of filing his paperwork.
The Army says it's refused to let Schwan leave because of the war.
"The Army Reserve is facing a critical shortage of officers and the retention of every soldier is important to our mission to safeguard the United States," said Col. Wanda L. Good, an Army personnel officer, in a letter last July.
Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, then the chief of the Army Reserve, informed commanders in policy memos in 2004 and 2005 that resignations would be decided case-by-case.
The Army Reserve's authorized manpower strength is 205,000, but its actual strength is around 185,000, according to Pentagon statistics.
Reserve officers can resign if their career fields are at least at 80 percent strength, or if they served in Iraq, Afghanistan or in a domestic security mission since the 2001 terror attacks, or if they had personal hardships, Helmly wrote.
Schwan served in Bosnia, but not in Iraq, Afghanistan or homeland defense. What's more, he's a military intelligence officer, a field that the Army says is below 80 percent strength.
Officers who've completed eight years of service and aren't in an Army Reserve unit can resign as long as they haven't received mobilization orders, said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman for personnel issues.
But officers who haven't completed eight years and those with reserve commitments "can't just resign," Hilferty said. "We're not McDonald's."
Most officers who ask to resign are approved. Army Reserve officials say that 256 of 432 requests were approved in 2004. In 2005, 505 requests were approved and 190 were rejected. So far this year, the Army Reserve has approved 119 requests and rejected 34.
Military law experts say that other officers have sued because their resignations were denied since the war in Iraq started. Army officials were unable to provide firm numbers.
The government is fighting Schwan's case, citing a clause in the 1952 Armed Forces Reserve Act that says officer commissions "are for an indefinite term and are held during the pleasure of the president." ---- There are several others, and even more enlisted men who have refused. There are, or were, posts in AnswerPool about some military, including officers, refusing to report. There have also been thousands of deserters.
07-08-06, 05:43 PM Scotty Go back, go back, there's two of them.
The fact being that all except one or two of our military officers have done their duty as required of them. You seem to have comfort in the fact that one or two refuse to do so. Pity.
quote: Perhaps you should tell that to Lieutenant Commander Bob Klant, the presiding judge at the court martial of Navy petty officer Pablo Paredes. Apparently, the judge is confused and needs your advice.
Perhaps you are right, DG, I'll get right on it.
quote: Paredes based his defense on his belief that the war in Iraq is illegal, and that he had a duty to avoid participating in it. He said that he wanted to "put the war on trial." This defense was not accepted by the judge.
quote: Navy petty officer Pablo Paredes was convicted and sentenced for missing movement stemming from his refusal to board the Iraq-bound ship USS Bonhomme Richard. The sentence included two months restriction, three months hard labor without confinement, and reduction in rank to E-1
This plus a Dishonorable or less than Honorable discharge should make life a little less comfortable for him in the future.
quote: The Navy could have taken the case to a General Court-Martial, which is the only court-martial that can impose the maximum punishment. A Special Court-Martial can only impose imprisonment up to a year, while a Summary Court-Martial can only impose imprisonment up to 30 days. The Navy settled on a Special Court-Martial.
Meaning they gave him a break.
quote: Webster's Dictionary defines 'coward' as a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc. Despite what his supporters claim he is, I see Pablo Paredes in that definition. I just hope the officers of the administrative separation board see him the same way and show that the Navy is willing to maintain discipline in its ranks.
Lt. Col. Matthew Dodd USMC
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Scotty, 07-08-06 07:42 PM
07-10-06, 05:04 AM Fourbrick2 Quote " Webster's Dictionary defines 'coward' as a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc."
By facing at least two of the above, ("difficulty and "opposition"), methinks Lt. Wattada has shown that he is NOT a coward.
07-10-06, 06:27 AM clarebear I'm going to a send off party next week. My friend at work is being deployed to Iraq for almost 2 years. (Over 500 days) I asked her what she thought about President Bush and the war. She told me that Bush is her Commanding Officer and she is just doing the job she got hired to do. She said that it isn't her place to determine what she thinks of Bush or his plan. She has been preparing for quite some time to go over there. She told me she has a mission to do and did seem positive about that. She is very scared. I'm scared for her. I admire her bravery and am very proud of her.
I think the guy isn't against the war; I think he's just scared. I'd be scared too but I still would go. I do understand why someone wouldn't want to go. If someone didn't want the job then they shouldn't have signed up. They knew that going to war was a possibility. Many men and women from all over the world are stationed in Iraq right now. My heart aches every time I hear of another soldier hurt. I feel the impact every time. I have known about 8 people who have gone to Iraq. I know 3 people still there. EVERY single one of them said, "Its my job and I'm going to do my job the best that I can." That, in my opinion, are the words of a true soldier. I am very proud of our troops in Iraq. I hope they all come home safely. I think the guy who refused to go should be dishonorably discharged.
07-10-06, 10:16 AM Scotty
quote: I'm going to a send off party next week. My friend at work is being deployed to Iraq for almost 2 years. (Over 500 days) I asked her what she thought about President Bush and the war. She told me that Bush is her Commanding Officer and she is just doing the job she got hired to do. She said that it isn't her place to determine what she thinks of Bush or his plan. She has been preparing for quite some time to go over there. She told me she has a mission to do and did seem positive about that. She is very scared. I'm scared for her. I admire her bravery and am very proud of her.
Now this is what I would call a very brave young lady, and she is the type of person that makes up the US military. I admire her very much. God bless her. It is a shame, that persons like this LT are the ones that get the spotlight, because he is simply a coward trying to make things look different to others. Moral reasons my a##. This coward will make up any excuse or story to try and hide his cowardice.
quote: "Its my job and I'm going to do my job the best that I can." That, in my opinion, are the words of a true soldier. I am very proud of our troops in Iraq. I hope they all come home safely. I think the guy who refused to go should be dishonorably discharged.
I agree with all of the above. This is the way it should be.
quote: By facing at least two of the above, ("difficulty and "opposition"), methinks Lt. Wattada has shown that he is NOT a coward.
Methinks what you thinks is wrong. Big Grin
07-10-06, 11:18 AM frankvan Purely hypothetical case: man joins service voluntarily, believing that he will be serving in a just cause. He discharges his responsibilities satisfactorily and honorably for a period of months or years. The ostensible reason for the conflict in which he had voluntarily participated is revealed to have been a tissue of lies and misrepresentations. He feels that he has been duped, that his Commander in Chief is a mendacious fraud. Rather than take part in the senseless killing of blameless people under the guise of bringing them democracy he elects to refuse deployment to the theater of operations. Some would say that the lieutenant deserves the benefit of the doubt, he demonstrates the considerable courage of his convictions. Others, from the relative safety of their peaceful civilian locales, and the anonymity of their screen names, choose to accuse the young man of cowardice. I guess it boils down to a matter of opinion, but aren't some of us confused about what constitutes courage?? How do you define coward ? I don't think it takes much courage to accuse others of cowardice. Who can honestly claim to know what is in someone else's heart? Confused
07-10-06, 12:15 PM clarebear Many young men join the military in hopes of a $25,000 education and a chance to visit the world. It doesn't always happen that way. Anyone with half a brain knows that you may have to do things that you don't necessarily want to do. Thats part of the job. I don't want that job. I didn't sign up. I didn't make the commitment and give the oath. He did. That is the real issue. I don't think being a coward is the issue. The fact is this: He is a commissioned officer in the US military. He signed a contract for a fixed amount of time. If he doesn't like something in the military and decides he wants to quit, he is in breach of contract. As a commissioned officer he received plenty of benefits that regular enlisted military do not receive. I think he should have to pay back the citizens of the US for all the education and benefits he received (aside from his regular pay). Being a commissioned officer is a position of high integrity. If you can't lead, how can you expect others to follow? He signed a contract, reaped the benefits and then changed his mind. He should have to pay the consequences for breach of contract. Those consequences should be a dishonorable discharge and repayment of all benefits above and beyond his basic pay. IMO.
07-10-06, 12:20 PM DorianGreyed Has there been any other war in which officers have initiated court action in order to avoid deployment to the war zone? I don't remember reading about any such action during the Vietnam war.
07-10-06, 01:50 PM newnickname Were the officers who participated in Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia (for example) doing the right thing? They also had signed up, accepted the benefits of the position and entered into contracts. Were they bound to follow orders, even though the invasion was little more than a grab for land and resources?
07-10-06, 02:24 PM Sarai I agree with Clarebear. Newnick, the honorable thing to do in the face of such action is not to participate, but also not to expect compensation for it. In other words, quit and accept the fact that you won't get the benefits. If there is a punishment for quitting, and you knew that upon signing up for the job, then you must take the punishment. If an officer thinks a cause is immoral and therefore does not want to fight for it, that is very honorable. It loses honor when the officer still thinks he should be rewarded as if he had fought. I work on a contract, and if I quit because I thought my boss and coworkers were involved in something immoral, I would still have the "black mark" of having broken a contract, and I would not expect that they would continue to offer me the benefits of one who completed the contract. But if I thought they were involved in something immoral, I wouldn't want their money anyway, nor would I worry about how it will look on my record - I would be proud of the reasons for breaking the contract, if I thought I was on solid moral ground. 07-10-06, 07:02 PM
frankvan Perhaps some of you have information over and above anything I have seen in this thread. Sarai speaks of " ....., the honorable thing to do in the face of such action is not to participate, but also not to expect compensation for it." .... where does that seem to be reflected in the lieutenant's statement that he was ".... ready to accept the possibility of dishonorable discharge, court martial and 2 years prison ? Sarai adds: ....." If an officer thinks a cause is immoral and therefore does not want to fight for it, that is very honorable." Exactly my point, and his! I don't see where the evidence exists for this assumption, though ..." It loses honor when the officer still thinks he should be rewarded as if he had fought." Perhaps Fred Puli can correct me if I'm mistaken but I believe that one party to a contract of any sort is under no obligation to remain bound by the contract if it turns out to have been fraudulently obtained or illegal in its terms, - therefore unenforceable.
Sarai concludes; "I would be proud of the reasons for breaking the contract, if I thought I was on solid moral ground." I think the lieutenant would agree with that.
Clarebear says; "Many young men join the military in hopes of a $25,000 education and a chance to visit the world.". Yes, no doubt, and some have few employment opportunities or hope of affording any higher education outside of the military. An all volunteer army is, by its nature, mostly drawn from lower income populations. But what do any of us know about Lieutenant Watada's motive for enlisting, or how he became a commisioned officer, or why his service would appear to hasve been sasifactory from 2003 to January of 2006 ? Could he possibly be sincere, truthful, AND honorable??? IMHO, he well may be!
07-10-06, 07:19 PM DorianGreyed If an officer wants to resign his commission, he should be allowed to do so. It is not as if he is resigning in order to fight against the US, using the training he received to fight against that which he swore to uphold; that, of course, would change the circumstances.
07-10-06, 07:31 PM Sarai Frank, you're right. I think I misunderstood this thread. Consider my point moot. Smile
07-10-06, 08:12 PM clarebear Enlisted:
quote: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Officer:
quote: I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.
I think he should be charged with AWOL. (Absent without Official Leave) I stand by my previous posts. 07-10-06, 08:27 PM Sarai Wait a minute, maybe Clare is right. Ahem, I think I'd better stay out of this thread. It seems to be one more of the billions of issues over which I seem to agree with everyone and no one right now. Politics. Sheesh. (Sarai walks away, muttering to herself like a crazy person).
07-11-06, 08:13 AM frankvan Sarai, the ability to agree with everyone, partially, or no one completely, is an admirable quality, in my opinion. I would call it tolerant, or thoughtful. Unlike some enthusiasts who only see all controversial issues in stark black and white, I think flexibility helps keep some of us sane.
I don't disagree with Clarebear, I think the lieutenant may well be charged with anything, including AWOL, dereliction of duty, desertion, breach of contract, etc. But I think the proper disposition of the case should have been to allow him to resign from the service. I suspect that history will be kinder to the young rebel than to his Commander in Chief whose misdeeds have produced far more serious consequences. He also took an oath, as I recall. What should HE be charged with?? Confused
07-11-06, 09:35 AM newnickname Watada is being charged with "missing movement (Article 87), contempt towards officials (Article 88), and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman (Article 133). If convicted of all charges by a general court-martial, Lt. Watada could be sentenced to four years in a military prison."
Clarebear, I don't see what you would have Watada do. It's not like he came to Canada to escape his punishment - he's prepared to stay there and suck it up. According to Watada, he has already turned down the easy option - an offer of a non-combat post in Iraq. That would have been continuing to ask for the benefits of the job while not fulfilling his duty.
He is willing, it seems, to take the consequences of his actions.
07-11-06, 11:02 AM Scotty
quote: Clarebear, I don't see what you would have Watada do.
The ideal situation would be for him to accept his responsibilities and duties as an officer of the US Army, and go to Iraq with his Unit and serve like a man. The only other way out should be to go to Federal prison for four years and receive a dishonorable discharge.
quote:
He is willing, it seems, to take the consequences of his actions.
As he should be.
07-11-06, 11:08 AM DorianGreyed "The ideal situation would be for him to accept his responsibilities and duties as an officer of the US Army, and go to Iraq with his Unit and serve like a man."
So once you join, you are in, especially those who got caught in the back door draft, and sued to get out? Officers have resigned their positions before. Why is this different?
07-11-06, 11:17 AM Scotty
quote: So once you join, you are in, especially those who got caught in the back door draft, and sued to get out? Officers have resigned their positions before. Why is this different?
The only reason for his resignation is the fact that he was assigned to combat duty. He was riding along just fine until they told him that he might have to pick up that m16 and use it. Then everything is different all of a sudden. Suddenly the war is illegal and morally wrong. Please give me a break. If he thought that the war was illegal, why did he wait to be assigned to combat duty to resign his commission? why not before?
07-11-06, 12:46 PM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: Purely hypothetical case: ... He feels that he has been duped, that his Commander in Chief is a mendacious fraud.
Frank, it doesn't matter what "he feels". He took an oath, period!
If our CIC has been deemed a "mendacious fraud", [by any authority], then surely he would no longer be in office.
Scotty, you're right. They just don't get it.
07-11-06, 01:50 PM frankvan It is my understanding that an officer in the U.S military has a duty to refuse an unlawful order. I'm thinking Nuremberg War Crimes basis. I think that is what Lt. Wataba also thinks. And it is also my understanding that, contrary to what Scotty contends, the lieutenant did offer to accept assignment to Afghanistan, which is also a combat theater, but one which practically everyone agrees is a "legal" and justified war.
07-11-06, 02:01 PM newnickname In the example about Abyssinia - which maybe people can look at more dispassionately - there was no Italian authority to say that Mussolini was a fraud, and the invasion was wrong, either. If the officers in that case had relied on offical word that their commander was wrong, they'd have had to wait for the verdict of history. Too late.
Bush is still in office because that's how the US government works. Most democracies work that way - if a leader has majority support in whatever assemblies exist, and there's no election due, he or she is very unlikely to be turfed out, whatever horrendous mistakes have been made or lies told.
We depend on the leader's own sense of honour or integrity - and though he can't come up with a single good reason for invading Iraq, Bush seems content to hang on to office. Clinton, for another example, survived his impeachment because senators voted on party lines, and he obviously didn't feel that lying connected to an affair was enough of a reason to resign in disgrace.
Watada has a serious conviction that there was no good reason to invade Iraq, I guess, and I've yet to see anyone come up with a convincing case otherwise.
Where Watada might be on shaky ground is if he believes there's no good reason for troops to stay in Iraq at the moment, while attempts are made to clear up the bloody case that Bush's lies and incompetence started off. Maybe it is Watada's duty to clean up after Bush.
07-11-06, 03:44 PM Scotty
quote: It is my understanding that an officer in the U.S military has a duty to refuse an unlawful order.
First off, he was not given an unlawful order. Why has every other officer in the military accepted their duty, and fulfilled their obligation? When he is sentenced to prison, then you will find that his orders were lawful. It is mighty funny that only one or two officers find this order unlawful.
07-11-06, 03:54 PM DorianGreyed "It is mighty funny that only one or two officers find this order unlawful." - Scotty
And, of course, a military judge.
"I think the government has successfully proved that any seaman recruit has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal." - Lieutenant Commander Bob Klant (presiding judge at court martial) comments after a difficult cross examination (by the prosecution) of International Law expert Marjorie Cohn.
You are right - it is funny.
07-11-06, 04:07 PM Scotty
quote: Watada has a serious conviction that there was no good reason to invade Iraq, I guess, and I've yet to see anyone come up with a convincing case otherwise.
NNN, there is not a soul this side of hell that can convince you that there was a good reason to invade Iraq, so you might as well accept that and move on. You constantly bring that up over and over, and you know that will never happen because you are too closed minded to accept any explanation no matter how good it is. The only thing that you and a few others around here will accept, is anything that is against this administration, whether it be lies or any anything else. I can remember many posts in the past that people gave you good reasons to invade Iraq but you just brushed them off, so why should anyone bother to try and convince you of anything?
07-11-06, 04:09 PM Scotty
quote: And, of course, a military judge.
Show me where it is written that the Judge said it was illegal. In fact he denied this defense.
quote: quote: Paredes based his defense on his belief that the war in Iraq is illegal, and that he had a duty to avoid participating in it. He said that he wanted to "put the war on trial.". This defense was not accepted by the judge
quote: You are right - it is funny.
Not funny by your definition.
Some of you are like the drowning man grabbing for straws, instead of looking at the rest of the military, you want to make examples of one or two people to try to make the whole
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
There is one very good reason, or justification, for the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a vicious tyrant. The people of Iraq needed the reins of his rule severed. The world media, and many other blind residents of Earth, just refuse to emphasize this fact, or even see it.
Quote: "Why, asks Orin, does the world see "photos of U.S. interrogators using dogs to scare prisoners at Abu Ghraib, but not the footage of Saddam's prisoners getting fed – alive – to Doberman pinschers on Saddam's watch"?"
I wish we were a society that reveled in the good, rather than the bad. ************************************************ 07-11-06, 07:31 PM frankvan There is one very good reason, or justification, for the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a vicious tyrant. The people of Iraq needed the reins of his rule severed. - Kendor
Saddam Hussein was the only (?) vicious tyrant?? Then why didn't Papa Bush invade Iraq?
07-11-06, 07:51 PM newnickname That Hussein was a vicious tyrant is a good reason for his overthrow. It is not a good reason for an invasion that killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Elsewhere, vicious tyrants have been successfully overthrown by much smarter and more subtle means. By supporting movements based within the country in question, for example. Hussein's overthrow-by-invasion has not even been successful to date; it has created a failing state, with a power vacuum, constant chaos and lawlessness, shortages and bloodshed.
Invading Iraq to get rid of Hussein involved massive overkill (literally), was illegal (the Bush administration is careful not to cite 'regime change' as a reason for the invasion), and didn't even work particularly well, in the aftermath it led to.
What the world is looking for is a good reason for the invasion of Iraq. What you've supplied is a good reason for the overthrow of Hussein's brutal government - and there were far more effective ways to achieve that than invasion.
07-11-06, 08:07 PM Scotty
quote: Saddam Hussein was the only (?) vicious tyrant?? Then why didn't Papa Bush invade Iraq?
That IMHO was a big mistake. We should have finished the job in the first Gulf war.
07-11-06, 09:06 PM DorianGreyed We supported that "vicious tyrant", even giving him the chemicals and equipment to make WMDs, which he used on the Kurds while Reagan was president. We have also supported several vicious tyrants over the years, and we have ignored several other vicious tyrants. Every US President since Eisenhower has ignored one or more of them. What was so different about Saddam? I can only think of 3 significant differences.
1. Saddam had an army that was still in tatters after the first Gulf war.
2. Saddam was the only vicious tyrant to say he had tried to have a US President (bush's father) assassinated.
3. Saddam had oil.
07-12-06, 04:30 AM Kendor Oh please DG. Not the oil thing again. Yeah, the US sure is wallowing in all that Iraqi oil. That's why it costs me $70 to fill my frickin tank.
07-12-06, 05:49 AM Scotty
quote: Oh please DG. Not the oil thing again. Yeah, the US sure is wallowing in all that Iraqi oil. That's why it costs me $70 to fill my frickin tank
Yeah! We are really benefiting from all of that Iraqi oil. Isn't it great?
07-12-06, 06:26 AM clarebear People only see CNN or Fox News. There is another side to the Iraq war. Troops are trying to help them build a government and take care of themselves. There are many people happy to see the troops there. It is giving them hope for a brighter tomorrow. They are in the process of building a government and they finally will have the chance for a better life- a chance for freedom. The military is trying to establish voting so the people of Iraq can choose their leaders. Many people in Iraq are very poor. They were poor before the war started. There are some people in Iraq who will finally get a chance to own their own little business. There is a bigger picture that the people and media don't see. We are in Iraq and we are staying until they can sustain themselves. We aren't leaving Iraq any time soon. What is done is done.
Everyone in the military isn't front line fighters. People in the military have various jobs. When they go to war, they do those jobs. Everyone isn't infantry. There are many other positions the Lt. could have taken yet chose not to.
One of my friends who went to Iraq was part of a food supply team. They supplied food and water bottles to people in the street. He was telling me it was so sad to see these people scrambling for water and food boxes.
My other friend who is leaving this month will be teaching the Iraq military how to defend themselves.
My one friend went there to fix the electrical systems.
Something to think about:
He got PROMOTED to officer. Why did he take the promotion if he couldn't do the job? He took the oath KNOWING the possibilities. He wasn't a newbie. His superiors obviously thought highly enough of him to promote him. They thought he would make a good leader. There are many talks before promotion. They discuss what is expected of you and how you feel about the promotion. I believe you have try to get promoted. Some people try for a long time to get promoted but can't. Promotions aren't something they just give to anyone. So it seems as if he was all sunshine and lollipops while giving his promotion oath and signing the dotted line. Shortly after that, he has what? An epiphany? He now is against the war and refuses to go. He won't even go in a different capacity. I don't feel bad for the guy.
07-12-06, 07:01 AM aminator2002 I may have read it wrong but I thought they refused to give him a non-combat position.
07-12-06, 07:12 AM clarebear The first post in this thread quotes him.
quote: My commanders told me that I could go to Iraq in a different capacity. I wouldn't have to fire a weapon and I wouldn't be in harm's way. But that's not what this is about. Even in my resignation letter I said that I would rather go to prison than do something that I felt was deeply wrong. I believe the whole war is illegal. I'm not just against bearing arms or fighting people. I am against an unjustified war."
07-12-06, 07:34 AM clarebear It seems as if Watada has a lot of supporters. This site is dedicated to thanking him. Read his interview here.
07-12-06, 08:36 AM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by Scotty:
quote: Oh please DG. Not the oil thing again. Yeah, the US sure is wallowing in all that Iraqi oil. That's why it costs me $70 to fill my frickin tank
Yeah! We are really benefiting from all of that Iraqi oil. Isn't it great?
As I recall, all that oil was supposed to pay for that whole expensive, pre-emptive, blow against terrorism. That's how we saved ourselves from WMD without budget deficits. Roll Eyes
07-12-06, 09:09 AM DorianGreyed "Oh please DG. Not the oil thing again. Yeah, the US sure is wallowing in all that Iraqi oil. That's why it costs me $70 to fill my frickin tank."
That, of course, was not the plan. But you have to remember just whose plan it was. File this one between "piece of cake" and "slam dunk" in the "Whose Bright Idea Was This?" file.
Remember that Iraq's oil production still has not returned to pre-invasion levels. I suppose that you guys blame Clinton or Saddam for that. Roll Eyes
07-12-06, 09:14 AM frankvan "Promotions aren't something they just give to anyone. So it seems as if he was all sunshine and lollipops while giving his promotion oath and signing the dotted line. Shortly after that, he has what? An epiphany? He now is against the war and refuses to go. He won't even go in a different capacity. I don't feel bad for the guy." - clarebear.
Aren't you being a little hard on the young man ? I don't see how anyone can read the interview you provided a link to without being able to see that this is a very intelligent and articulate young man. His reasoning is not terribly different from many of his fellow citizens. We were lied to, misled - if you prefer, but it is not unreasonable to believe that the positive results of our presence in Iraq are inconsequential in comparison to the negative ones. Can anyone honestly believe that the toll in human lives, both American, coalition, and Iraqi is justified by the improvements only visible to the most stubbornly optimistic?
You say " He won't even go in a different capacity.", He refused to accept a non-combat role in Iraq, but he did agree to go to Afghanistan in a combat role. Doesn't that tell you something?
07-12-06, 09:29 AM newnickname Yes, taking him at his word (although I don't suppose you have to), it was not an epiphany, or anything as mysterious, that led to his objections, but the gathering evidence about what an awful lie (or mistake) the invasion had been based on. Refusing to go to a non-combat position (if that's the right term) in Iraq is surely a mark of principle. That would have been the easy way out.
Clarebear does have a point in that most of the US troops in Iraq now are trying to help (although the money for reconstruction has pretty much run out - given away in sackfuls to crooked contractors). Whether or not the US army's continued presence is worsening the situation is debatable - not the kind of question a soldier could reasonably take a stand like Watada's on.
If I was judging him I might want to say that a refusal to participate in the invasion would have been a reasonable case of refusing to obey an illegal order, but refusing to help try to clear up the consequences (although understandable, and closely connected) is not so clear-cut.
Still waiting to hear of a good reason for the invasion of Iraq.
07-12-06, 09:37 AM Scotty
quote: Yes, taking him at his word (although I don't suppose you have to), it was not an epiphany, or anything as mysterious, that led to his objections, but the gathering evidence about what an awful lie (or mistake) the invasion had been based on. Refusing to go to a non-combat position (if that's the right term) in Iraq is surely a mark of principle. That would have been the easy way out.
I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
quote: Still waiting to hear of a good reason for the invasion of Iraq.
Like I said can't be done. You won't accept any reason.
07-12-06, 09:41 AM newnickname
quote: Like I said can't be done. You won't accept any reason.
Yes I would. I would accept a good reason. As you haven't even tried to present one, or argue the case for one, your telling me what I would or would not do with it sounds odd.
Why not just tell us the good reason, and let the world (well, the dozen or so contributors here) see for themselves whether or not my mind is closed?
Suggest a good reason for the invasion of Iraq, or perhaps explain why Kendor's suggestion does actually mean the invasion (and not a change of government by more effective means) was necessary. I'm listening; my mind is open...
07-12-06, 10:29 AM clarebear I read the interview after I posted. I'm actually trying to find out more information about it. It does seem that he got hired in as a Lt. He may not have been promoted at all. I still believe, after reading the interview, that he should be dishonorably discharged. IMO
I wonder what some of our military members think. Koz? Are you staying out of this one?
As for why we invaded Iraq, I'm still not clear on that one. I usually stay out of the political threads because I'm not as informed as I should. The whole invasion doesn't sound right to me. I honestly don't know what to believe.
07-12-06, 10:36 AM frankvan
quote: Still waiting to hear of a good reason for the invasion of Iraq.
You're asking for the impossible. There is no "good reason" for the invasion of Iraq. Would you like a list of all the discredited and implausible and after-thought reasons? How about, to leave the place in worse shape than during Hussein's reign, or to improve recruitment of jihadists?
07-12-06, 10:44 AM newnickname Interestingly, the army court seems to opening the case up as much as possible.
[i['Seitz said the Army listed Sarah Olson, an independent journalist, and Gregg Kakesako, a reporter for the Honolulu Star Bulletin, as witnesses.
Olson and Kakesako, who have published interviews with Watada, were not immediately available for comment.
The charge sheet quotes Watada as saying in one interview: "As I read about the level of deception the Bush administration used to initiate and process this war, I was shocked. I became ashamed of wearing the uniform."' today. reuters.com [/i]
So they're going to be discussing Bush's deceitfulness (or honesty) in court. I wonder if this is deliberate. You'd think the army would want to keep it short and sweet - 'he refused to go so throw him in jail'.
Maybe they're just trying to throw the book at him, but why drag such statements into it, unless the army actually wants wider issues aired?
07-12-06, 11:23 AM frankvan "Still waiting to hear of a good reason for the invasion of Iraq". - clarebear
Shouldn't the good reason be evident preceding the invasion, rather than still elusive after 2500 dead service men and women?
"As for why we invaded Iraq, I'm still not clear on that one" and "I wonder what some of our military members think. Koz? Are you staying out of this one?" - clarebear
Isn't it natural that those who are in the military WANT to believe that there is some GOOD reason for their being blown up, possibly disabled or killed? Do they have a choice? And you have heard from one military member. A very articulate lieutenant and heard his arguments, and you see what has become of him 'til now. You can contrast his reasons with those of our "Hibernian enthusiast" military spokesman.
07-12-06, 01:05 PM aminator2002 Obviously I sympathize with this guy, but the problem here is what it would do to the future of the army to not punish the guy. People can not get out of their contract with the army without punishment by claiming something "I think it's illegal." In my opinion that is a matter that needs to be decided by the American people and the congress or Supreme Court. If the Army were to just let this guy out of the contract then anyone who ever wants out of the Armed services contract can claim that they believe the action to be illegal.
Corporal Klinger would have loved to have as easy of an out.
So I guess the fact that he's willing to accept the punishment makes this all kind of moot. I have no problem with people saying anything they want to get out of a voluntary contract as long as they are willing to pay the consequences.
07-12-06, 01:17 PM Scotty
quote: Isn't it natural that those who are in the military WANT to believe that there is some GOOD reason for their being blown up, possibly disabled or killed? Do they have a choice? And you have heard from one military member. A very articulate lieutenant and heard his arguments, and you see what has become of him 'til now. You can contrast his reasons with those of our "Hibernian enthusiast" military spokesman.
The military frowns on those that do not, or will not obey orders, Frank. Call it what you will, but this guy isn't in very good favor with the military. I could care less how articulate he is, he is wrong, and he is in trouble.
What about all of the Thousands of other officers and personnel that have gone and serve honorably? Are they all war criminals? Hardly. You pick one or two people that cause trouble, and lift them up to something that they are not.
He will be punished for this action. 07-12-06, 02:30 PM Scotty
quote: You can contrast his reasons with those of our "Hibernian enthusiast" military spokesman
Better yet, contrast his reasons with those of the thousands that have already served in Iraq honorably. Brave Officers and troops. You have friends who are willing to go and serve, contrast his reasons with theirs.
07-12-06, 02:56 PM frankvan Of course the military "frowns on those that do not obey orders". of course he will be punished. That is not the point. The point is that he knows that he will face court martial, and possibly prison, discharge, etc. - but that he is willing to do that. He could very easily have chosen a non combat role in Iraq as he was offered, and was willing to accept a combat role in Afghanistan, which did not violate his conscience. I think he, among many others, makes a very persuasive argument against the morality and/or legality of the Iraq invasion.I can't dignify that ill-advised travesty by calling it a War on anything, much less a successful one on trrorism. I still maintain that if given an order by a superior officer which I believe violates the law, I have a duty to refuse to comply. The harsher the penalty threatened, the more courage non-compliance requires. To dismiss the young man with an epithet, labeling him "coward" is a poor example of fair comment. IMHO
07-12-06, 03:17 PM clarebear You are right Frank. I don't think labeling him a coward is right. I was wrong if I implied that earlier. He is standing up for what he believes in which is why he doesn't want to go to Iraq.
I still think he should be dishonorably discharged. Gay men have been charged for much less. IMHO
07-12-06, 03:29 PM Scotty
quote: To dismiss the young man with an epithet, labeling him "coward" is a poor example of fair comment. IMHO
Not knowing what is in his heart, I guess I would have to agree with you on that.
07-12-06, 03:38 PM frankvan I don't know why you think he should be "dishonorably discharged". There are other ways of separating him from the service. I seem to recall other cases where people have been discharged for "the convenience of the service" or some such. He could also be simply allowed to resign. Suppose a future ruling by the Supreme Court determines that the war is in violation of international law, tht the president acted without United Nations approval, although a signatory to U.N treaty, wouldn't the lieutenant be exonerated? Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King jr. all broke the laws they considered unjust. They all went to prison for their beliefs. Were the law breakers right - or did they help change the laws?
07-12-06, 03:42 PM DorianGreyed "He could also be simply allowed to resign."
There is certainly precedent for this.
07-12-06, 03:52 PM Scotty
quote: I don't know why you think he should be "dishonorably discharged".
What exactly would happen to the discipline in the Armed Forces of this Country if people were allowed to disobey orders whenever they felt like it? He should have to suffer the penalties that he brought upon his own head, and this includes a dishonorable discharge.
07-12-06, 03:55 PM Scotty
quote: "He could also be simply allowed to resign."
There is certainly precedent for this.
Are you sure? Can you reference a case where an Officer refused combat duty, and was allowed to simply resign?
07-12-06, 04:49 PM DorianGreyed "Can you reference a case where an Officer refused combat duty, and was allowed to simply resign?" - Scotty
Why, yes, I can, now that you ask.
Brigadier General John Adams, entered west point 1841, graduated 25th in his class, resigned in 1861, then went to Tennessee to enlist in the Confederate army.
Gen. Edward Porter Alexander, graduated third in his class at West Point, In 1861, Alexander resigned from the U.S. Army and joined the Confederate Army.
GENERAL ROBERT HOUSTON, Graduating from West Point in 1857, Anderson accepted a commission as a lieutenant of artillery in the Confederate army once the secession crisis had begun, being listed as "absent without leave" from the U.S. Army until his resignation was received in 1861.
GENERAL LOUIS ADDISON, son of a high-ranking U.S. Army officer, Armistead entered West Point in 1834. In 1836, he was dismissed for breaking a plate over the head of cadet Jubal A. Early, who later became a Confederate general. Entering the army in 1839 as a lieutenant in the 6th U.S. Infantry, he was brevetted three times for bravery in the Seminole War. Although he held that "obedience to duty" was "the first qualification of a soldier", and was a strict disciplinarian, Armistead was known as a friendly man with a casual manner. He resigned from the army to join the Confederate forces in 1861.
GENERAL SETH MAXWELL BARTON, US Military Academy at West Point at the age of 15, graduated Class of 1849. He resigned from the US Army in 1861, and was appointed lieutenant colonel of the 3d Arkansas Infantry.
GENERAL PIERRE GUSTAVE TOUTANT BEAUREGARD, US Military Academy at West Point, where his fluency in French allowed him to read many military classics in their original language. He graduated second in his class in 1838. In January of 1861, Beauregard was appointed superintendent of West Point. He held the position for only a few days, however, before his outspoken Southern sympathies led to his being released. On February 20, 1861, Beauregard resigned his commission, and accepted a commission as a brigadier general in the Confederate States Army on March 1. He commanded the bombing of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, where US Army forces had gathered for safety and defense.
GENERAL GEORGE EDWARD PICKETT, West Point in 1846, in the same class as George B. McClellan and Thomas J. Jackson, In 1861, he resigned his commission and joined the Confederate army
GENERAL JUBAL ANDERSON EARLY, West Point, Class of 1837, chose to join the state forces in Lynchburg when Virginia seceded.
GENERAL JAMES EWELL BROWN STUART, West Point Class of 1850, In May of 1861, after Virginia seceded, Stuart resigned his commission in the US Army, and became a colonel in the Confederate cavalry
GENERAL JOSEPH WHEELER, West Point, Class of 1859, resigned from the US Army to join the Confederate Service.
and, of course
GENERAL ROBERT EDWARD LEE, son of Revolutionary War cavalry hero Maj. Gen. Henry Lee III "Light Horse Harry", appointed from the US Military Academy, and became corps adjutant, the major post of honor for a West Point cadet. Graduating second in the class of 1825, he was commissioned a 2d lieutenant in the Corps of Engineers, He resigned his commission in the US Army, accepted command of the defenses of Virginia on April 23, 1861 and was promoted to full general on August 31, 1861
Please note that these men not only were allowed to resign from the Army, but then used the training that they received (at the expense of the US Government) to fight against the United States. Lee was actually offered command of the US forces, but refused.
07-12-06, 06:56 PM frankvan
quote: What exactly would happen to the discipline in the Armed Forces of this Country if people were allowed to disobey orders whenever they felt like it? He should have to suffer the penalties that he brought upon his own head, and this includes a dishonorable discharge.
I don't know for certain but I question your loading the question with the qualificatioin "whenever they felt like it". How about if the question were changed to read "whenever the orders were, or appeared to be, in violation of one's ethical or religious beliefs"? What exactly would happen, you ask? I know that you believe the whole fabric of military discipline would unravel. Have you ever considered that the military services might attract a better class of recruit ? That our armed forces might regain some of the image they enjoyed when I was a member? When the prestige of the American military was unequaled in the world and the country was almost universal in support of the war, and we didn't have to defend or justify ourselves in the rest of the world. Could we not hold his guilty verdict and penalty until his trial has been held and he has been represented by counsel?
07-12-06, 07:13 PM Kendor The fact is that this issue isn't about an order given by some Colonel or Captain, that some random subordinate deems "illegal", or "immoral."
This is about one man, defying orders coming directly from the Pentagon. The men and women in the Pentagon; this is what they do, this is their job. I know if I was performing poorly in my job, [in the eyes of some 'authority', not my subs'], my stay would become quite short.
Just because you folks, whatever you label yourselves, the 'left' I think it is, do not feel the war in Iraq is 'legal' or 'moral', (what war is moral), doesn't give any officer in the United States military the right to defy direct orders from the Pentagon!
Following orders, WITHOUT QUESTION, is absolutely fundamental to any military conquest. Yes, I said conquest.
Frank, I'm surprised that you, having served, (thank you), don't agree with that.
07-12-06, 07:21 PM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: "Can you reference a case where an Officer refused combat duty, and was allowed to simply resign?" - Scotty
Why, yes, I can, now that you ask.
Any in a more recent Century Dorian?
07-12-06, 07:31 PM frankvan
quote: Following orders, WITHOUT QUESTION, is absolutely fundamental to any military conquest.
Well, now that Lt. Watada has been removed, when can we expect the conquest ??
07-12-06, 07:36 PM frankvan
quote: Any in a more recent Century Dorian?
Relevance ???
07-12-06, 07:36 PM Kendor "When can we expect the conquest?" - Frankvan
Well we've got to give the world media a good flogging first. Then we'll have a shot.
07-12-06, 07:36 PM DorianGreyed It would be a great deal more work to find more recent ones, but I am confident that they exist. The important thing is that very obviously precedent was set. In any case, once again, I answered Scotty's question. He asked for " a case" and I cited several. There are several more just in the group of Confederate Generals. Finding officers of lower ranks would be much harder, and, frankly, not worth my time and effort, but they are sure to exist.
Yes, Scotty, I am very, very sure.
07-12-06, 07:40 PM frankvan
quote: Can you reference a case where an Officer refused combat duty, and was allowed to simply resign?
As you have been told several times: He didn't refuse combat duty, he was willing to serve in a combat theater in a war he believed was legitimate - in Afghanistan.
07-12-06, 07:40 PM Kendor
quote: Originally posted by frankvan:
quote: Any in a more recent Century Dorian?
Relevance ???
Yes, WWI, WWII, Korean conflict, Vietnam "police action", battles undertaken by a more 'mature' nation. The US was in its infancy during ALL of DG's examples. Relevance? C'mon.
07-12-06, 07:41 PM newnickname Wasn't Dubya, an officer, simply allowed to opt out of flying planes over Texas, and then drift out of the National Guard - although the country was at war, and (we're told) flying those planes was a vital and dangerous part of the US's defence?
As you have been told several times: He didn't refuse combat duty, he was willing to serve in a combat theater in a war he believed was legitimate - in Afghanistan.
Bull! He, as an officer, knew darn well that, one, his defiance to his initial orders would bring about controversy, and two, that the Pentagon does not 'barter' with its troops' deployments. Had they said, Ok Mr. Cowadata, we'll let you go to Kabul instead, I'm sure Mr. Cowadata would have suddenly had a revelation about his participation in that theater being against his constitution.
Sad, but true. I'm very, very sure.
07-12-06, 07:53 PM Scotty
quote: Yes, WWI, WWII, Korean conflict, Vietnam "police action", battles undertaken by a more 'mature' nation. The US was in its infancy during ALL of DG's examples. Relevance? C'mon
Quite right! Things were quite different then. The examples listed were a different situation. Plus they were not under orders for combat duty at the time. Civil war. My God. Good examples.
07-12-06, 07:54 PM Scotty
quote: Bull! He, as an officer, knew darn well that, one, his defiance to his initial orders would bring about controversy, and two, that the Pentagon does not 'barter' with its troops' deployments. Had they said, Ok Mr. Cowadata, we'll let you go to Kabul instead, I'm sure Mr. Cowadata would have suddenly had a revelation about his participation in that theater being against his constitution.
Sad, but true. I'm very, very sure.
Right again. They just don't get it.
quote: "whenever the orders were, or appeared to be, in violation of one's ethical or religious beliefs"?
Out of the blue he has ethical and religious beliefs.
When you are handed orders, you just don't hand them back, and say...I won't go there, but I will go over there. Sorry it doesn't work that way.
"This is the first US military Officer that has refused to accept his duty to serve."
"Go back, go back, there's two of them." - Scotty
"Why has every other officer in the military accepted their duty, and fulfilled their obligation?" - Scotty
"Antiwar supporters have claimed Watada is the first U.S. Army officer to refuse to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom. However, Department of the Army spokesman Paul Boyce said last month that Watada “is not the first officer, not the first enlisted, nor the first Soldier” to refuse deployment to Iraq." - http://www4.army.mil
"Following orders, WITHOUT QUESTION, is absolutely fundamental to any military conquest." - Kendor
As Hamilton Action for Social Change has noted "Under the Nuremberg Principles, you have an obligation NOT to follow the orders of leaders who are preparing crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. We are all bound by what U.S. Chief Prosecutor Robert K. Jackson declared in 1948: [T]he very essence of the [Nuremberg] Charter is that individuals have intentional duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state." At the Tokyo War Crimes trial, it was further declared "[A]nyone with knowledge of illegal activity and an opportunity to do something about it is a potential criminal under international law unless the person takes affirmative measures to prevent commission of the crimes."
The outcry about the coming war with Iraq is also overwhelming from legal experts who have studied this in great detail.
By November of 2002, 315 law professors had signed a statement entitled "A US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and Set a Dangerous Precedent for Violence That Will Endanger the American People."
It should be noted here that the US Constitution states that only Congress can declare war. In no sectyion does it state that Congress can delegate that authority. Strict constructionalists should see that, unless their principles move about to fit their beliefs.
This may get really interesting. " Under military law, soldiers have the right to refuse to carry out illegal orders; in fact, they have a duty not to commit war crimes. According to Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Watada retains the right to a preliminary hearing to "present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation." Under Article 46 defendants are allowed at trial to "compel witnesses to appear and testify and to compel the production of other evidence." " ( The Nation) I wonder what witnesses he will really be allowed to "compel...to appear." If he starts calling Constitutional law experts, the whole thing could easily blow up in the Pentagon's face. The recent Supreme Court decision Hamdan v. Rumsfeld indicates that the majority of the Court thinks that the President is much more limited in what he can do than the current administration thinks. It certainly points out that the US is bound by the various Geneva Convention treaties, and, by extension, UN rulings as well. (See above) It would not surprise me if a deal was cut by the government, going over the military's head, in this case, possibly a "Less than Honorable" discharge, with loss of all benefits. ******************************************************************* 07-12-06, 09:11 PM Scotty Show me where it is official that the war in Iraq is illegal. I want to see the official papers. If it is illegal why are we still there, and why did so many other Nations join in the fight. Please give me something official, and not liberal nonsense.
quote: This may get really interesting. " Under military law, soldiers have the right to refuse to carry out illegal orders; in fact, they have a duty not to commit war crimes
Show the papers that this is an illegal order or a war crime. Why does Congress continue to let our troops engage in a illegal war? Are all of the other troops that went over war criminals?
07-12-06, 09:39 PM DorianGreyed Show me where the Constitution says that the President can declare war.
Scotty, the US government is set up with three equal branches, legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative makes laws, the executive carries out the laws, and the judicial (the Supreme Court and lesser federal courts) determine cases in which violations of the Constitution may exist. Sometimes, laws, policies, and actions are found to be unConstitutional, and declared null. Such decisions are not arrived at quickly, and very rarely does the Court step in without a case being brought before them. These things take time. Brown v. Board of Education was first in court in 1951, but didn't get to the Supreme Court until 1952. It was Argued December 9, 1952, Reargued December 8, 1953, and Decided May 17, 1954, and what is called Brown II was completed in 1955. But the conditions that led to the original court case in Kansas existed since Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, in 1899. The result of Brown was that something that was not only regarded a legal but was in fact the law of the land was determined to be unConstitutional. Like I said, these things take time. While we are waiting, why don't you try to find the part of the Constitution that allows the President to declare war. I'll even help you start. Here, at the Yale Law School Avalon Project, is the entire Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (read the first one) and Amendments 11 - 27.
07-13-06, 07:40 AM FredPuli Why the fuss? A court martial in Britain jailed an RAF doctor who refused to go to Iraq. The man tried to cite 'voluminous' authorities on the illegality of the war. The Judge told him, tersely, that he, the judge , wouldn't be lectured in his own court SmileIt is not open to a defendant to plead that a war is itself illegal but only that a given order to him was to do an unlawful act e.g to shoot a captive. The sentence was only of eight months but the judge said that it was intended to make clear that this was the law and any others intending to refuse should be aware of the consequences. The hint was that next time the sentences would be greater, any new defendant not having the mitigation of sincerity coupled with ignorance of the law.
07-13-06, 09:39 AM newnickname Resolution 1441 does not make the invasion of Iraq legal. It was up to the Security Council to decide what to do if Hussein violated the resolution. The US administration tried to get support from the UN for a further resolution actually authorising military action, but gave up on the attempt, and went ahead unilaterally.
“Our Constitution provides that treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the ‘supreme Law of the Land’. The United Nations Charter, which our nation wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945, provides that—except in response to an armed attack—nations may neither threaten nor engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council. President Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he advocates a right to ignore our treaty obligations and to visit the scourge of war upon Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations.” ( (2003 statement by 315 teachers of law from 87 law schools across the US )
I think that part of Watada's case is that intelligence at the time was not so clear on whether or not there was a threatening arsenal of WMD in Iraq, and those wanting to invade Iraq 'sexed up' the evidence, fixing the facts around the decision to invade. An objective view of the evidence available at the time did not point to a necessity for invasion. The Dark Side
Even if Bush & Co really did think there were imminently threatening WMD in Iraq, and launched the war based on that, against the objections of most of the Security Council, then they made a horrible mistake. Tens of thousands have died, terrorism increased, and US foreign policy is in tatters because of their mistake. Why haven't they done the honourable thing and resigned ? Where's their moral courage and integrity?
07-13-06, 10:22 AM newnickname Fred's point is interesting. I wonder if the US court will take that line.
Being ordered to go to Iraq is maybe not itself illegal - although I think Watada has said that the presence of US troops in Iraq is illegal.
Would he have to wait until somebody actually said "Shoot that child!" to make his stand? (Where does that leave pilots and artillery men? For all the hoo-ha about smart weapons, civilian casualties have been an inevitable consequence of their actions. Was the order to bomb Zarqawi's house illegally reckless? How about the massive bombardment of Falluja?) Wouldn't that be too late? Could Watada's case be that, as a soldier (not a doctor) in an illegal and unpopular occupying force he would inevitably have to carry out illegal orders once in Iraq?
07-13-06, 11:18 AM Kendor Not only is Fred's point interesting, IT'S WHAT SCOTTY AND I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS WHOLE THREAD.
07-13-06, 11:40 AM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: Fred's point is interesting. I wonder if the US court will take that line.
Being ordered to go to Iraq is maybe not itself illegal - although I think Watada has said that the presence of US troops in Iraq is illegal.
Would he have to wait until somebody actually said "Shoot that child!" to make his stand? (Where does that leave pilots and artillery men? For all the hoo-ha about smart weapons, civilian casualties have been an inevitable consequence of their actions. Was the order to bomb Zarqawi's house illegally reckless? How about the massive bombardment of Falluja?) Wouldn't that be too late? Could Watada's case be that, as a soldier (not a doctor) in an illegal and unpopular occupying force he would inevitably have to carry out illegal orders once in Iraq?
The fact that our man, a Flight-Lieutenant, was serving as a medic was not raised.It wouldn't make any difference that he was not likely to be directly involved in fatal action. The military law applies to any officer regardless of his specialty though it might go to mitigation that the man had not joined with a view to bombing people Smile From a lawyer's point of view there is nothing exceptional about this case nor about the arguments raised. This man's counsel did try the line that it was a defence if the man genuinely believed that the commands were unlawful, whether or not they, or the war, were. That shows a degree of realistic desperation on his part . He kno
