Lt. refuses deployment to Iraq

[khel]

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs19056

First Lieutenant Ehren Watada still refuses Iraq deployment orders, calling the war illegal. A six-year prison term could result. Preliminary hearings are set for Thursday.

First Lt. Ehren Watada, a 28-year-old Hawaii native, is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment to
Iraq. He announced last June his decision not to deploy on the grounds the war is illegal.

Lt. Watada was based at Fort Lewis, Washington, with the Army's 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He has remained on base, thus avoiding charges of desertion.

He does, however, face one count of "missing troop movement" and four counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison.

First Lt. Ehren Watada
Photo courtesy:
Jeff Paterson/thankyoult.org

Watada's court martial is on February 5. A pre-trial hearing is set for January 4, with an added scope of controversy: the Army has ordered two freelance journalists, Sarah Olson and Dahr Jamail, to testify against Lt. Watada at the hearing. Both journalists are fighting the subpoenas.

Kevin Sites recently spoke with Lt. Watada about the reasoning behind his decision, the controversy the decision has caused and how he is dealing with the repercussions.

Lt. Watada spoke on the phone from his family's home in Hawaii. Click here to listen to the full audio version of the conversation. A transcript of the interview follows.

KEVIN SITES: Now, you joined the Army right after the US was invading Iraq and now you're refusing to go. Some critics might look at this as somewhat disingenuous. You've taken an oath, received training but now you won't fight. Can you explain your rationale behind this?

EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of
Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.

Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq.

SITES: Tell me how those views evolved. How did you come to that conclusion?

WATADA: I think the facts are out there, they're not difficult to find, they just take a little bit of willingness and interest on behalf of anyone who is willing to seek out the truth and find the facts. All of it is in the mainstream media. But it is quickly buried and it is quickly hidden by other events that come and go. And all it takes is a little bit of logical reasoning. The Iraq Survey Group came out and said there were no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 and during 2003. The 9/11 Commission came out and said there were no ties with Iraq to 9/11 or al-Qaeda. The president himself came out and said that nobody in his administration ever suggested that there was a link.

And yet those ties to al-Qaeda and the weapons of mass destruction were strongly suggested. They said there was no doubt there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout 2002, 2003 and even 2004. So, they came out and they say this, and yet they say it was bad intelligence, not manipulated intelligence, that was the problem. And then you have veteran members of the
CIA that come out and say, "No. It was manipulated intelligence. We told them there was no WMD. We told them there were no ties to al-Qaeda. And they said that that's not what they wanted to hear."

SITES: Do you think that you could have determined some of this information prior to joining the military — if a lot of it, as you say, was out there? There were questions going into the war whether WMD existed or not, and you seemingly accepted the administration's explanation for that. Why did you do that at that point?

WATADA: Certainly yeah, there was other information out there that I could have sought out. But I put my trust in our leaders in government.

SITES: Was there a turning point for you when you actually decided that this was definitely an illegal war?

WATADA: Certainly. I think that when we take an oath we, as soldiers and officers, swear to protect the constitution — with our lives as necessary — and those constitutional values and laws that make us free and make us a democracy. And when we have one branch of government that intentionally deceives another branch of government in order to authorize war, and intentionally deceives the people in order to gain that public support, that is a grave breach of our constitutional values, our laws, our checks and balances, and separation of power.

SITES: But Lieutenant, was there one specific incident that happened in Iraq or that the administration had said or done at a certain period that [made you say] "I have to examine this more closely"?

WATADA: No, I think that certainly as the war went on, and it was not going well, doubts came up in my mind, but at that point I still was willing to go. At one point I even volunteered to go to Iraq with any unit that was short of junior officers.

SITES: At what point was that?

WATADA: This was in September of 2005. But as soon as I found out, and as I began to read and research more and more that the administration had intentionally deceived the public and Congress over the reasons for going to Iraq, that's when I told myself "there's something wrong here."

"I saw the pain and agony etched upon the faces of all these families of lost soldiers. And I told myself that this needs to stop."— Lt. Ehren Watada

SITES: Was there any kind of personal conviction as well, I mean in terms of exposure to returning soldiers or Marines — the kinds of wounds they suffered, the kinds of stories that they were bringing back with them — did that have any kind of influence or create any factors for you in coming to this decision?

WATADA: Sure, I felt, well, in a general sense I felt that when we put our trust in the government, when we put our lives in their hands, that is a huge responsibility. And we also say that "when we put our lives in your hands, we ask that you not abuse that trust; that you not take us to war over flimsy or false reasons; that you take us to war when it is absolutely necessary." Because we have so much to lose, you know — the soldiers, our lives, our limbs, our minds and our families — that the government and the people owe that to us.

SITES: Was there a fear that played into that? Did you see returning soldiers with lost limbs? Was there a concern for you that you might lose your life going to Iraq?

WATADA: No, that had nothing to do with the issue. The issue here is that we have thousands of soldiers returning. And what is their sacrifice for? For terrorism or establishing democracy or whatever the other reasons are. And I saw the pain and agony etched upon the faces of all these families of lost soldiers. And I told myself that this needs to stop. We cannot have people in power that are irresponsible and corrupt and that keep on going that way because they're not held accountable to the people.

SITES: You know on that note, Lieutenant, let me read you something from a speech that you gave in August to the Veterans for Peace. You had said at one point, "Many have said this about the World Trade Towers: never again. I agree, never again will we allow those who threaten our way of life to reign free. Be they terrorists or elected officials. The time to fight back is now, the time to stand up and be counted is today." Who were you speaking about when you said that?

WATADA: I was speaking about everybody. The American people. That we all have that duty, that obligation, that responsibility to do something when we see our government perpetrating a crime upon the world, or even upon us. And I think that the American people have lost that, that sense of duty. There is no self-interest in this war for the vast majority of the American people. And because of that the American soldiers have suffered.

There really is a detachment from this war, and many of the American people, because there is no draft, or for whatever reason, because taxes haven't been raised, they don't have anything personally to lose or gain with this war, and so they take little interest.

SITES: Do you think
President Bush and his advisers are guilty of criminal conduct in the prosecution of this war?

WATADA: That's not something for me to determine. I think it's for the newly-elected congress to determine during the investigations that they should hold over this war, and pre-war intelligence.

SITES: But in some ways you have determined that. You're saying this is an illegal war, and an illegal act usually takes prosecution by someone with criminal intent. Is that correct?

WATADA: Right, and they have taken me to court with that, but they have refused — or it will be very unlikely that the prosecution in the military court will allow me to bring in evidence and witnesses to testify on my behalf that the war is illegal. So therefore it becomes the responsibility of Congress, since the military is refusing to do that. It becomes the responsibility of Congress to hold our elected leaders accountable.

[khel]

SITES: Now this is the same Congress though that in a lot of ways voted for this war initially. Do you think that they're going to turn around and in some ways say that they were wrong? And hold hearings to determine exactly that, that they made a mistake as well? It seems like a long shot.

WATADA: Right, well I think some in Congress are willing to do that, and some aren't. And that's the struggle, and that's the fight that's going to occur over the next year.

Lt. Watada with his mother, Carolyn
Ho, and father, Robert Watada
Photo courtesy:
Jeff Paterson/thankyoult.org

SITES: Let me ask you why you decided to go to the press with this. In this particular case you're the first officer — there may have been other officers that have refused these orders, but you're the first one to really do this publicly. Why did you do that?

WATADA: Because I wanted to explain to the American people why I was taking the stand I was taking — that it wasn't for selfish reasons, it wasn't for cowardly reasons.

You know, I think the most important reason here is to raise awareness among the American people that hey — there's a war going on, and American soldiers are dying every day. Hundreds of Iraqis are dying every day. You need to take interest, and ask yourself where you stand, and what you're willing to do, to end this war, if you do believe that it's wrong — that it's illegal, and immoral. And I think I have accomplished that. Many, many people come up to me and say, "because of you, I have taken an active interest in what's going on over in Iraq."

And also, you know, [I want to] give a little hope and inspiration back to a lot of people. For a long time I was really without hope, thinking that there was nothing I could do about something that I saw, that was so wrong, and so tragic. And I think a lot of people who have been trying to end this war felt the same way — that there was just nothing that they could do. And I think by taking my stand publicly, and stating my beliefs and standing on those beliefs, a lot of people have taken encouragement from that.

SITES: You've said that you had a responsibility to your own conscience in this particular situation. Did you also have a responsibility to your unit as well? I just want to read you a quote from Veterans of Foreign Wars communications director Jerry Newbury. He said "[Lt. Watada] has an obligation to fulfill, and it's not up to the individual officer to decide when he's going to deploy or not deploy. Some other officer will have to go in his place. He needs to think about that." Can you react to that quote?

WATADA: You know, what I'm doing is for the soldiers. I'm trying to end something that is criminal, something that should not have been started in the first place and something that is making America less safe — and that is the Iraq war. By just going there and being willing to participate, and doing my job, or whatever I'm told to do — which actually exacerbates the situation and makes it worse — I would not be serving the best interest of this country, nor the soldiers that I'm serving with. What I'm trying to do is end something, as I said, that's illegal, and immoral, so that all the soldiers can come home and this tragedy can come to an end.

It seems like people and critics make this distinction between an order to deploy and any other order, as if the order to deploy is just something that's beyond any other order. Orders have to be determined on whether they're legal or not. And if the order to deploy to a war that is unlawful, if that is given, then that order itself is unlawful.

SITES: How did your peers and your fellow officers react to your decision?

WATADA: I know that there have been some people within the military who won't agree with my stance, and there have been a lot of members of the Army of all ranks who have agreed with what I've done. And I see it almost every other day, where someone in uniform, or a dependent, approaches me in person, or through correspondence, and thanks me for what I have done, and either supports or respects my stand.

SITES: You've remained on base, and that's been a situation that can't be too comfortable for you. Can you fill us in on what that's been like there?

WATADA: I think that for the most part, people that I interact with closely — I have been moved, I'm no longer in the 3rd Striker Brigade, I'm over in 1st Corps — treat me professionally, politely, but keep their distance. I don't think anybody wants to get involved with the position that I've taken, either way. People approach me in private and give me their support.

SITES: Tell me about the repercussions you face in this court martial.

WATADA: Well I think with the charges that have been applied to me and referred over to a general court martial, I'm facing six years maximum confinement, dishonorable discharge from the army, and loss of all pay and allowances.

STES: Are you ready to deal with all those consequences with this decision?

WATADA: Sure, and I think that's the decision that I made almost a year ago, in January, when I submitted my original letter of resignation. I knew that possibly some of the things that I stated in that letter, including my own beliefs, that there were repercussions from that. Yet I felt it was a sacrifice, and it was a necessary sacrifice, to make. And I feel the same today.

I think that there are many supporters out there who feel that I should not be made an example of, that I'm speaking out for what a lot of Americans are increasingly becoming aware of: that the war is illegal and immoral and it must be stopped. And that the military should not make an example or punish me severely for that.

SITES: Do you think that you made a mistake in joining the military? Your mother and father support you in this decision, and your father during the Vietnam War refused to go to Vietnam as well, but instead joined the Peace Corps. He went to his draft board and said, "let me join the Peace Corps and serve in Peru," which is what he did. Do you think in hindsight that that might have been a better decision for you as well?

WATADA: You know I think that John Murtha came out a few months ago in an interview and he was asked if, with all his experience, in Korea, and Vietnam, volunteering for those wars -- he was asked if he would join the military today. And he said absolutely not. And I think that with the knowledge that I have now, I agree. I would not join the military because I would be forced into a position where I would be ordered to do something that is wrong. It is illegal and immoral. And I would be put into a situation as a soldier to be abused and misused by those in power.

STIES: In your speech in front of the Veterans for Peace you said "the oath we take as soldiers swears allegiance not to one man but to a document of principles and laws designed to protect the people." Can you expand upon that a little bit — what did you mean when you said that?

WATADA: The constitution was established, and our laws are established, to protect human rights, to protect equal rights and constitutional civil liberties. And I think we have people in power who say that those laws, or those principles, do not apply to them — that they are above the law and can do whatever it takes to manipulate or create laws that enable them to do whatever they please. And that is a danger in our country, and I think the war in Iraq is just one symptom of this agenda. And I think as soldiers, as American people, we need to recognize this, and we need to put a stop to it before it's too late.


_______________________________

So.. your thoughts?

[bikewrench]

I think he has a big pair of balls and the courage of his convictions that most of us pretend we have but actually lack. It is really interesting how his last statements in the interview echo another thread on this site (somthing to ponder) when he talks about our leaders acting as though laws do not apply to them etc.

[jackpine savage]

Its an all volunteer military. While I applaud the man for standing up for his principles he choose freely to serve in the military. While he seems to accept the punishment that will be handed out to him he also says that many people feel he shouldn't be made an example of. Just what would happen to our military if they didn't punish him. He really gave them no choice.

[cerobit]

I don't believe his assertion that the war is illegal. Didn't some of the UN resolutions that Iraq violated allow for member nations to use military force?

[Bill McIntyre]

I don't believe his assertion that the war is illegal. Didn't some of the UN resolutions that Iraq violated allow for member nations to use military force?

I don't know whether its legal or not, but "legal war" is sort of an oxymoron anyway. What matters is whether its a moral and justified war, worth sending our young people to die and worth spending our national treasure, and I don't think this one qualifies. We were not attacked by Iraq, and had no reason to think we could be attacked by Iraq.

As far as the Lt. goes, as long as he is willing to face the punishment, then I admire him for following his conscience. The Army has no choice but to court martial him because we can't very well have a military in which people pick and choose their wars. But if he is willing to sacrifice himself to call attention to this unnecessary and counterproductive war that has only put us in more danger, then more power to him.

[bikewrench]

I don't believe his assertion that the war is illegal. Didn't some of the UN resolutions that Iraq violated allow for member nations to use military force?
I don't remember the exact UN resolutions Iraq "violated" but seem to remember they had something to do with giving up their WMD's. I think we know now why they didn't "give them up", THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY!!! Just like they kept saying.

[bikewrench]

Nice fish Bill!

[cerobit]

I don't remember the exact UN resolutions Iraq "violated" but seem to remember they had something to do with giving up their WMD's. I think we know now why they didn't "give them up", THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY!!! Just like they kept saying.


I'm thinking of pre-9/11 and any talk of WMD's. Were'nt there a slew of 90's Sec council resolutions that Iraq scoffed at?

[Bill McIntyre]

I'm thinking of pre-9/11 and any talk of WMD's. Were'nt there a slew of 90's Sec council resolutions that Iraq scoffed at?

I think Israel has scoffed at more Security Council resolutions that any other country, but we haven't invaded yet.

Edit- here is an excerpt from one hit when I Googled it.

Historically, Israel is one of the few member states to consistently defy the Security Council by refusing to accept or violating over 40 resolutions, primarily because of the unwavering support it has from the United States.

Zunes said there are scores of Security Council resolutions regarding international humanitarian law and related issues currently being violated by U.S. allies like Israel, Turkey and Morocco, over which the United States has used the threat of its veto power to block enforcement.

These include resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471, which call on Israel to withdraw from its settlements in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem; resolution 497, which calls on Israel to rescind its annexation of the Golan Heights; and resolutions 252, 267, 298, 476 and 478, which call on Israel to rescind its annexation of greater East Jerusalem; among others.

Similarly, with the support of France, the United States has also blocked a series of resolutions regarding Morocco's ongoing occupation of Western Sahara -- both from the 1970s -- which called for the unconditional withdrawal of Moroccan forces and, more recently, resolutions simply calling for an internationally-supervised referendum on the fate of the territory.

So when do we invade?

[cerobit]

But Bill, did those resolutions include military action as a penalty for non-compliance?

[Bill McIntyre]

But Bill, did those resolutions include military action as a penalty for non-compliance?

We have veto power in the Security Council, and we would never permit a threat of military action in a resolution toward Israel.

[SEATUX]

Bill, don’t you think he has a point? If an officer tells you to wipe out a village of civilians, you could be tried for war crimes, isn’t it an illegal order? Or the rape and pillaging that happens against innocent civilians, it usually get covered up or ignored, but when it comes to light people get court marshaled

[Bill McIntyre]

Yes, he may have a point, but I've over my head here legally. I'll defer to mcjaret on that.

[jackpine savage]

He wasn't being asked to kill innocent civilians, he was being ordered to deploy to Iraq. One is an illegal order one isn't. Willfully following an illegal order makes a soldier liable to prosecution just as much as refusing to follow a lawful order by a superior officer.

[mcjaret]

There is a presumption of legality in every order so any servicemember disobeys what he claims is an illegal order at his own peril. This spitwad will have ample opportunity to try and convince a board of fellow officers, or a Military Judge, at his court-martial, that the war is illegal, and thereby, the order to deploy was illegal. I saw it tried a couple of times in the first gulf war. It didn't go far.

Most cases where illegal orders are found involve pretty clearcut situations -- like "put these prisoners in a boxcar, take them out in the country, and kill them." Calling an airstrike on a village where you are taking fire is not illegal even if you know non-combatants will be killed, its to be expected of you. All close calls goes to the commander. Otherwise, combat discipline goes to hell with every individual deciding what orders should be followed and which ignored.

He who takes the Queen's shilling, must do the Queen's bidding.

[peterv]

I could understand a draftee feeling that way, but he volunteered.

He must follow orders.

It won't be the first or last war based on bad intelligence or political lies.

(the USS Maine*, tricked up manifests for Lusitania**, Gulf of Tonkin*** resolution come to mind)

* zero evidence the Spanish sunk the Maine.
WRHearst & politicians wanted otherwise. A decades later investigation by Adm. Rickover concluded explosion was from internal source (coal bunker or ammunition)

** Winston Churchill reportedly behind creating one manifest for the US papers (showing no weapons) and another leaked to the Germans (showing ammunition & arms). Great Britain & Allies needed US to enter WWI. Civilians on Lusitania collateral damage.

*** What torpedoes ?

Except for self-defense, how is ANY war legal or morally justified ?

[mcjaret]

Saw a special years ago about a team diving the Lusitania. Holds full of ammunition.

All wars seem like a good idea at the time they start. Justification is the spin politicians and others put on it later. Rationalization is probably a better word.

[Mikerotch]

Mcjaret, I would appreciate it very much if you would not sit on any jury that may try me. Spitwad ? I didn't read that entire interview, but I do recall an interview in which the "spitwad" volunteered to go to combat in Afghanastan and fight known Alqaeda members. Therefore, it seems logical that he is not a coward trying to renig on his commitment, but instead is someone who genuinely believes that his Commander-in-Chief has lied in order to use the American military for purposes that are not legitimate at least as far as said use relates to the Constitution. Add that to the fact that no war has been declared by the constitution-trashing congress and I tend to believe he has a legitimate case.

Mikerotch,
former radical conservative Republican Party member, now radical conservative American who has regard for our Constitution. (I had to choose because the two are mutually exclusuve)

[SeaAggie]

Maybe he should have read his oath.

[Kevin Casey]

It was ruled today that he may not use the legality, or illegality of the war in general as a defense for the refusal of his orders to deploy.

He is a fairly frequent speaker around Seattle now. He was quoted quite a bit at the recent MLK rallies around town. He is drumming up support for his advocacy.

[Kevin Casey]

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=watada17m&date=20070117&query=lt+watada

See if this link works....

[TGuthrie]

Its not as hard as people think to get out of going to war right now. I see people all the time fake medical issues, fail their PT tests on purpose ect....all beacause they are tired of spending more time in the desert than they do at home.
The 5th of this month at 6pm my phone rang, the next morning I was in the air headed for iraq...I signed up for it though,I am overseas a lot, my wife it used to it....I love it....so I could care less,but for someone to just straight up refuse makes me sick, I can't stand that. Granted they may have children, wch i don't...so it may be a little differnt, but plenty of people spend years away from their kids.

Tom

[Kevin Casey]

He isn't married, and he doesn't have kids....

I think its a wash, really. If he were to go and command a platoon of men with his head not in it and screw that up, soldiers would get wasted.

He took himself out, so there is more room for the people who will accept their command, and achieve. Its better all around.

He offered to go somewhere else, but that's not the point.

The thing is, just objecting to go, well maybe they can reassign you someplace else, or bust you down some or let you go...

But he is getting Conduct Unbecoming an Officer for saying the war is not just, in addition to refusing to go.

He probably felt he had to justify his refusal to go by saying the war was unjust.

He's stupid.

His advocacy is based on flawed logic because it seems he wants to make that statement, not becasue he just doesn't want to go.

[mcjaret]

Mike,

I promise you a fair trial followed by a first class hanging!

Last I checked, unless you're the HMFIC, you don't get to say, "I don't like this LZ, I want to go to one over there." Again, this is a common ploy with those who refuse to deploy. They always claim they'd be happy to fight some place else or against a different foe -- its just the particular situation they've been ordered into that they object to.

I prosecuted the same guy twice for refusing to deploy in the first Gulf War. He claimed the first time that he had some unresolved medical issues and a contract dispute that led him to refuse, but that he was ready to deploy now. His CO took him at his word, pulled him out of the brig, commuted his sentence, gave him leave, then scheduled him to deploy. He got all the way to the tarmac before he dropped his gear and refused to get on the plane. His defense counsel did a masterfull job of getting him before a Judge to plead guilty the day before active fighting broke out. The Judge said later that meant the difference between 10 months and several years in prison.

If it sounds like I have no sympathy for those who took the King's shilling and then refuse to go when things get hot, that's because I don't. Write the President or your Congressman, vote communist, or donate money to Hillary, fine -- that's your call, but you have to keep the faith with your brothers when combat orders come down and get on the plane.

[MUDSLNGR]

Wether he believed that the war is illegal or not, like has been said many times, he took an oath. That oath is representative of every day that he spends in this country able to speak his mind and enjoy free will, and a promise to defend that. Every war this country has ever been involved with has had some conspiracy of ill intention, this is nothing new. And we will never have a president that will tell us every motivation for every action, so all we can really ask for as americans is to be protected, provided with public services, and a job rich economy. And I realize that we need a little fine tuning, but our basics are covered and I'd fight for that. I have no sympathy for anyone that gets into something they aren't educated on.

[Mikerotch]

Thanks, MC. I would certainly appreciate the first class hanging as opposed to anything second rate. For the record, I am not communist nor Democrat. In fact, I'm 44 years old and will bet you 1 beer you have voted for more democrats in national elections than I have. I've voted in every election since 1982 and the total number of dems I've voted for so far is 0. Do you owe me a beer? I'm quite sure that outside this particular "conflict" you and I would agree on an overwhelming majority of thoughts with regard to right and wrong when it comes to the services. For example, I agree in principle that when you take the kings schilling you don't pick and choose when you go to work. However; there are a couple of things here that are completely out of whack assuming we do in fact live in a constitutional republic. (And I would be the first to admit this is not the first time) One, George is the president and commander-in chief. Note : He is not King. In other words, as president he is under the authority of the constitution, which by the way, he took an OATH to uphold. That constitution gives the ultimate authority and responsibility for the DECLARATION of war to the legislative portion of our government. (suck, though they may ) sec 8 of Article 1.
To date, no declaration of war has been made. Some say it doesn't matter, however it seems to be a very slippery slope we are on and granted it's not the first time. But, objectively, throughout our history the "non-declared" wars have been disastorous. The declared wars were won decisively as "we the people" had defined purpose and fought as a nation with resolve. I would assume that you would agree that should George (or Hillary) issue orders to do some act of aggresion that was Stalinist or Hitlerist by nature, our men in uniform at some point would out of conscience be obligated to stand and say no. In other words, their power to direct is, in fact, not absolute. I would simply suggest that there is at least some evidence that said individual is not a coward and is objecting to this deployment out of conscience. I know beyond a shadow of doubt that there is conclusive PROOF that this president lied as to the reasons for said "war" and that from a constitutional perspective even if what he said was true (and it's not) it would still be an unconstitutional act.
I know you may find this hard to believe, but my primary reason for opposing this "war" is out of respect and love for those who have chosen to serve. I believe that the 3,000 + servicemen we have lost is one of the greatest travesties in our history and for that I am deeply sorry. We as a nation owe each person in service better than this. Personally, I can understand resentment on any serviceman's part when one of the brothers willfully disobeys orders, but this man has obviously determined that it is worth the price to say no to what he believes is a tyrant. Again, that is hard for me to say given my background and support for the Republican party up until shortly after this bastard was elected. ( I regret but am being truthful and admit I voted for him the first time ) ( And no, I did not vote for Kerry the second time ). In any event, my best to you and whoever serves. May we look forward to more peaceful times, or at least pick the right targets for any future aggresion.

Mikerotch

[SeaAggie]

The military judge said it best in his review, "whether the war is lawful" is a political question that could not be judged in a military court. We have 3 branches of govt that can figure out legality of the war. If the Supreme Court some how rules that the war was wrong, maybe he will have a leg to stand on.

Unless they have changed the write up on the commission recently, here is a line from mine that he may not have read:

"This commission is to continue in force during the pleasure of the President of the United States of America, under the provisions of those public laws relating to officers of the Armed Forces....."

As a former officer in the military I have NO sympathy for this man. He freely chose the path he is walking now but he may have forgotten "That I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion ; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties......". His next defense will probably be that his oath wasnt real anyway because he swore to God and his rights were violated by doing so.

[chasintail]

Shoot him!

How who you like it if you were being robbed and beaten and the police officer on duty decided not to respond?

This man is a coward and should be punished to the fullest extent.

[Kevin Casey]

He's stupid.

I was the one who said he was stupid.

If you agree with that, then you would punish a stupid man to that extent?

I think it is way too easy to mix your own advocacy about the legitamacy of the war itself, right or wrong, good or bad or whatever, with the persecution and punishment of one individual offender.

I mean, he is out of the way.

If I were a foot soldier, I'd almost appreciate someone like him for no longer being in a position where he could tell me what to do.

[mcjaret]

We should all be thankful that most criminals are stupid. If the world were really filled with Lex Luthors we'd be in an even bigger mess.

Mike, I never meant to imply you were a communist (although an old professor of mine told me you can win any argument if you forced the opponent to deny he's a communist). As for the voting bet, the dealer take all pushes. Zero equals zero and I go back to Nixon in '74. Send beer.

If you just count Korea and Nam, well over 100,000 men have died in undeclared wars. I don't think anybody in the developed world's fought a "declared" war since WWII. For better or worse, the custom seems to have lost favor. For those on the ground, the war doesn't appear any different. Every President since Roosevelt has had fighting men in action in undeclared conflicts. (Even Roosevelt had American destroyers escourting convoys and engaging u-boats before Pearl Harbor.) Commander-in-Chief means what it says and Congress has the check to that by controlling the purse. They can cut off the funding. (Of course, Teddy Roosevelt got around that by sending the great white fleet on a world tour anyway and told congress if they wanted to get them back from the other side of the world, they'd better pay for the coal.)

Trust me, I don't like how this war is going. My son-in-law leaves for Iraq in 3 weeks, and I dread it. Not the first time I've sat home and worried. Still, if I got orders today, I'd go. If my children receive orders, I expect them to go, and I know they will. I don't have to like it and neither do they, but that's the way it is.

[Mikerotch]

I can not disagree with anything you have said. Except, I thought I dealt, therefore I should take the push. Send beer.
On second thought, since you are apparently serving under the current administration, and I am guilty of not working hard enough to make sure true conservatives controlled the party and government, I should, by default, owe you several beers.

Mikerotch says thanks.

P.S. Agreed that congress controls the purse, but I'm not sure cutting off funds at this point is ethical, as no doubt the poor guys that are over there would likely suffer and be exposed to additional hazards. As an old truck driver of mine once said regarding a "no win" dilema, "It's a sh!&&y situation and it needs to be wiped clean."

[mcjaret]

As Thomas Jefferson said about another unpleasant situation: "Its like holding a wolf by the face. You don't like it, but you don't dare let go."

BTW, I was put out to pasture several years ago, and am only subject to recall. No one's gotten that desperate yet, but I do have family still in the game. Happily, the govt does still pretend to pay me every so often though.

[Wayward Son]

From what I've seen, it's usually the barracks lawyers that manage to get themselves into the worst trouble.

Any time you decide to refuse an order, you're walking on quick sand & usually don't leave the service any options other than to courts martial you for it. I'm ponderously unsympathetic to this person.

However, someone did make a good point: the rest of the soldiers are going to be better off without him him.

[Tally_Luke]

I think he needs to STFU and pick up his ruck. He signed up voluntarily, probably got his college paid for and plenty of other benefits.



Luke

[SEATUX]

Two Charges Dropped Against Watada
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013007J.shtml
The US government has agreed to drop two counts of conduct unbecoming
an officer from its case against 1st Lieutenant Ehren Watada. The two
counts, dropped Monday, carry a maximum of two years in prison.
Watada made comments to reporters in June explaining why he refused
to go to Iraq, why he was challenging the Bush administration's
reasons for going to war, and why he considers the war illegal. In
exchange for the two counts, Watada's attorney Eric Seitz agreed to
stipulate to statements Watada made to reporters - Honolulu Star-
Bulletin's Gregg Kakesako and freelance reporter Sarah Olson - so
they will not have to testify.