Jun 06 2006
Fort Lewis Soldier to refuse to deploy- UPDATED
UPDATED BELOW
I won't fall into my first impulse which is to attack him. I won't question his patriotism. I won't call him a traitor or a coward.
I will ask him why he is an officer in the Army and what his oath means to him?
In his defense, he has offered to resign his commission. But I do wonder why he enlisted and became commissioned in the first place? He enlisted the summer of 2003 so he knew war was a possibility.
When you enlist, I don't care how you feel about war. You make an oath to obey orders and you have to have that in consideration. It is a gut check all active duty people make in enlisting and or reenlisting.
Fort Lewis Soldier Says He'll Refuse To Go To Iraq
As thousands of Fort Lewis Army troops prepare to head back to Iraq, one of their officers is making a stand.
A lieutenant says he is going to refuse to go, saying it's an unjust war. Anti-war groups are rallying to his defense.
Lt. Ehren Watada of the Stryker Brigade writes, "I refuse to be silent any longer. I refuse to watch families torn apart, while the President tells us to ‘stay the course.’ I refuse to be party to an illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression.
"I wanted to be there for my fellow troops. But the best way was not to help drop artillery and cause more death and destruction. It is to help oppose this war and end it so that all soldiers can come home." - signed LT.
His name had been kept a secret until now, but Lt. Watada's father confirms that his son is taking this bold step and told the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper that he's proud of his son.
Fort Lewis says since the lieutenant hasn't done anything official yet, there's no violation. But should he decide to go ahead with this, he could be charged with 'desertion' or more likely with 'missing the movement' of his unit.
It's happened before with a sergeant who refused to go. Sgt. Kevin Benderman was sentenced to 15 months for refusing to go to Iraq.
Lt. Watada asked for reassignment and tried resigning his commission, but the Army refused. His attorney tells us from Hawaii that Watada is not against all wars, just this one.
"I've been doing this for nearly 40 years and I'm somewhat astounded that in the context of a war that is becoming increasing unpopular that they are relatively unsophisticated in addressing these issues," said attorney Eric Seitz from Hawaii.
This doesn't sit well with fellow soldiers.
"We're here to serve our country and fight and that's his job," said Private Nathan Hanson. "It's his duty."
Anti-war protestors, many of which demonstrated at the Port of Olympia recently, are rushing to his aid. They have put up a Web site believing he's the first commissioned officer to refuse to go.
The lieutenant says he'll make his intentions official Wednesday at noon and that's when his defense team will kick into gear.
Let me be the first to remind the LT what he potentially faces in the UCMJ:
Article 92. Failure to obey order or regulation.
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Article 87. Missing movement.
Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
He faces Jail. I hope he is prepared for the consequences.
His supporters are on the attack in his defense:
The organizations that back this site are the typical ones:
I hope he is ready for the media circus he will be a new part of. The anti war left will use him and abuse him for the benefit to their agenda
UPDATE:
Well we have some of the answers to the questions I raised, courtesy of his press conference.
Military Officer Would Chose Jail Over a Stint in Iraq
An Army officer due to ship out to Iraq later this month would rather go to jail than serve and complete the assignment.
"It is my duty as a commissioned officer of the United States Army to speak out against grave injustices." said 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, a member of the Stryker unit, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. "My moral and legal obligation is to the Constitution and not those who would issue unlawful orders. 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."
Ok, so here we see his moral justification. He has deemed the orders unlawful because he deems the war unlawful.
If he insists on this definition, he is clearly prison bound.
A quick note: Lt, your responsibility is indeed to ensure your orders are valid, but your entire chain of command has already validated that issue. This is not a case where a rogue officer is making command decisions of questionable nature, this is clearly a case where the orders and policies are accepted and in place. Your disaproval is not even noteworthy let alone justification. Sorry. You really need to consult the ADC.
Watada is a 28-year-old Hawaii native who said he twice tried to resign his Army commission as an officer because of his opposition to the Iraq War.
He has not previously served in Iraq but is scheduled to deploy to the city of Mosul with his unit.
Watada joined the Army in 2003 and said he supported the war at the outset because he believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Since then, he said he has become convinced the Bush administration "intentionally manipulated intelligence" in order to go to war.
Highest Ranking Protest to Date
Watada is the most senior officer to go public and challenge his orders to go to Iraq.
Others have filed for conscientious objector status, which is an objection to all war. Watada, however, said he is not filing as a conscientious objector because he does not oppose all war -- just this one.
He might also want to review Article 31 of the UCMJ, and excercise his rights against self incrimination. He is building his own cell.
"The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people with only limited accountability is not only a terrible moral injustice but a contradiction to the Army's own law of land warfare," Watada said.
Military lawyers said he is putting himself in substantial jeopardy. "He could face a charge of 'Missing Movement by Design,'" said military lawyer Eugene Fidel. In that case he could face dismissal -- the officer's equivalent of a dishonorable discharge -- and jail time.
In a statement released by Fort Lewis, where Lt. Watada is currently assigned, military officials said no decision had been made yet regarding his future.
"For a commissioned officer to publicly declare an apparent intent to violate military law by refusing to obey orders is a serious matter and could subject him to adverse action," the statement said. "No decision regarding personnel actions involving 1st Lt. Watada will be made until a thorough review by his commander occurs in accordance with military law."
Even worse. While i doubt the military will invoke this, he potentially faces even harsher penalty.
The military in addition to Articles 92 and 87 could invoke Article 90, Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer.
“Any person subject to this chapter who—
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”
So if his commander gives him a direct order to deploy, after explaining why it is a lawful order, and he refuses to deploy, he could face, in a long shot, worst case scenario, extremely unlikely to happen and interesting only for the sake of decussion way, the death penalty.
I wonder if he and his supporters realize just how important and serious this issue is?
And the military must take a hard line (not that hard I am positive) on this because displine of the military must be upheld. He will face jail. They really have no choice.
Speculation aside, he is in serious trouble, and his anti war supporters may not be able to use their anti war rhetoric to emotionally sway a Courts Martial.
The b'sphere is buzzing but remember you read it here first.
Read more at Michelle Malkin, Confederate Yankee, Wizbang, Cold Fury, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Stop The ACLU, Media Blog on National …, and Riehl World View
Pay note at Michelle's site about the left's defense that had begun.
Meanwhile, his lawyer is on KVI talk radio defending him. I will update more later.
UPDATE 2:
His lawyer has made the case: Bush lied about WMD's, so he joined the Army under false pretenses, the war is immoral and he is morally justified to not deploy. And no court should hold him accountable for making a moral choice.
Damn. This is unhinged.
UPDATE 3:
The lawyer just bailed after agreeing to stay and take more questions. John was pretty hard line and all the lawyer has was typical anti war rhetoric.
If that is there case, all I can say is he is toast. If that is his decision, and it is his choice to do so, then he has no defense. There is no legal military right to dissent a particular war. There is to object to war in general, and serve in a non combat role, but not to make a politcal statement against a particular conflict. I feel sorry for him, but he has made his own bed.
In a way, I feel sorry the guy. He is being propped up and supported by the anti war left who are hanging him out to dry for the anti war principle.
UPDATE 3:
The backlash is beginning. From Michelle Malkin:
Update (via Kristinn T): Military families speak out...
MILITARY FAMILIES REBUKE ARMY LT. WATADA FOR REFUSAL TO SERVE AND ALLIANCE WITH ANTI-AMERICAN GROUPS
(Washington) Rebecca Davis, Cofounder of Military Families Voice of Victory (www.mfvov.org), issued the following statement today on the announced plans by Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada to disobey orders to serve in Iraq:
“On behalf of the members of Military Families Voice of Victory, and as a mother of three sons who have served honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am demanding the Army prosecute Lt. Watada to the fullest extent under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
“The refusal by Lt. Watada to obey lawful orders to serve in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom will surely encourage al Qaeda in Iraq to continue terrorizing the Iraqi people and attacking U.S. and coalition forces, and encourage al Qaeda and allied terrorist forces around the globe to wage war against America and Western civilization.
“Lt. Watada has chosen to ally himself and accept financial aid from Not in Our Name, a front group for the Revolutionary Communist Party. He has also accepted aid from other anti-American organizations that have expressed support and/or given material aid to terrorists in Iraq.
“Lt. Watada is not standing on principle, nor is his stand valiant. He is a coward and a traitor. His actions will only serve to get his fellow soldiers killed so that he can save himself and become famous.”
25 Responses to “Fort Lewis Soldier to refuse to deploy- UPDATED”
Leave a Reply
You can track future comments on this post via this RSS feed. You can trackback this post by pinging this URL.
Allowed HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
“It’s his duty.”…
Fort Lewis Soldier Says He’ll Refuse To Go To Iraq
As thousands of Fort Lewis Army troops prepare to head back to Iraq, one of their officers is making a stand.
A lieutenant says he is going to refuse to go, saying it’s an unjust war. Anti-war …
I am not suprised.
There is bound to be afew who do not agree in the upper ranks, law of averages and stuff.
BUT
He is a commissioned officer, he knows the risk of going to war, that he can be called on by his Commander and Chief, which is the President, whether it be Bill Clinton, or President Bush, or who ever is the next one, to go to war if called upon.
He enjoyed he rank, the privledge, with the understanding of what it means to be a soldier AND to be an officer. Personally i say let him be allowed to resign his commission, and if he recieved any benfits, those should be repaid, since he has not fulfilled his obligation of his contract, his commission, with the military.
Essentially what it comes down to his is signed a contract and took an oath, of which he is trying to back out of. I beleive tere should be some consequences, because you don’t back out of a legal contract without some difficulty or pain from you unless the other side really wants to be nice.
As a previous grunt, I can tell you the thoughts on officers do not run very high and seeing an officer try and renege on his contractual duty and his oath, will make the military, or at least the lower enchelon scorn him even more.
<blockquote>
Army Officer Candidate School (OCS) is a 14-week program which graduates commissioned officers in the United States Army.
Basically, there are three categories of OCS candidates: College Graduates (civilians), current military (enlisted) and direct commission (doctors, lawyers, chaplains, etc.)
All OCS graduates must serve a minimum of three years on active duty following graduation from OCS.
The OCS selection process is very selective. Only about 60 percent of all those who apply are accepted for attendance at OCS (Note: Enlisted [current military]selection rates are relatively higher. About 70 percent of enlisted applicants make it through the screening process). It should be noted that College Graduate (Civilians) and Current Military (enlisted) do not compete with each other for available OCS slots. College Graduate (civilian) applicants are selected by a selection board convened by the Army Recruiting Command, and Current Military (enlisted) are selected by a board convened by the Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). Once selected, the graduation rate for OCS is over 90 percent.
</blockquote>
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armytrng/a/ocs.htm
More can be viewed here: http://www.armyocs.com/portal/index.php
OCS FAQS: https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/Active/opdistacc/OCS/OCS_FAQ.htm
Playing Devils Advocate, a decent read here with:
AWOL in America: When desertion is the only option
http://www.notinourname.net/troops/awol-23feb05.htm
Bryan Suits on KVI talk radio raised a good point tonight.
There is a difference in whether he was always anti war and whether he had some epiphany along the way. That is possible and needs to be examined and perhaps taken into account.
We won’t know until tomorrow, if then, when they have the official news conference.
But regardless, while he is lawyered up, he may want to consider dumping the civilian lawyer and have a little chat with his Area Defense Council. He has rights under the UCMJ even as what he is doing is a violation of the UCMJ.
He may want to get some advice from the people that understand it.
There is a difference in whether he was always anti war and whether he had some epiphany along the way. That is possible and needs to be examined and perhaps taken into account.
I disagree with this.
This should not make one bit of diference when you have taken and oath and signed into a contractual agreement.
Just because your outlook may have changed, does not make the contract and your obligation any less binding.
Officer Refuses Deployment…
I heard this on the news this morning, and this is from Wizbang (courtesy of Stop the ACLU):As thousands of Fort Lewis Army troops prepare to head back to Iraq, one of their officers is making a stand. A lieutenant…
Dishonorable Discharge for cowardice before the enemy, 20 hard years, defered if he agrees to renounce his citizenship and to leave the United States and never come back.
Dishonorable Discharge for cowardice before the enemy, 20 hard years, defered if he agrees to renounce his citizenship and to leave the United States and never come back.
Note: Until he deploys, and is actually in theater, it is not cowardice in the face of enemy.
Watada is wrong. It is not up to any one individual to suddenly decide which order is illegal. We are taught what an illegal order is in basic training and what to do about it. Established law is your guide. You can’t make it up as you go along. He is unfit to be an officer, unworthy of his uniform and an embarrassment to his unit. VW
As I was listening to Lt Watada’s lawyer I knew then that he is toast. If I was Watada, I will be looking for another lawyer. I will pick a military lawyer because I will have a better chance that he knows more about how a Courts Martial is convened. However now that Watada has held a press conference he is toast. Some people won’t call him a coward but, I will. He is a coward. He is not a man of his word. I could go on and on but I will let the UCMJ handle it. It is best because I will not want my son or my nephew to ever run into him or for him to try and lead them to the latrine or anywhere for that matter.
Edward B. Pablo
First Sargent
US. Army Retired
Just as I didn’t judge Hadatha, I won’t this..
But I too have a question, Karl: Why is the "media circus" not being questioned?
Why is This getting so much media time?
The reasons this is "newsworthy" to the anti-war faction is obvious… Why is the pro-war faction siezing so avidly on this?
Is it bait? Are you taking it?
Thousands deploy; one refuses… He’s treated like Moses assailing Pharoh,,, The prophet comes…
And yes, this IS the one and only Possum writing…
BTW… This is what we get for going on the [pre-emptive] warpath…
Another Day, Another Coward…
Let’s just skip all the hoopla and take the dumbass out and shoot him. … …
Just as I didn’t judge Hadatha, I won’t this..
But I too have a question, Karl: Why is the "media circus" not being questioned?
I thought it was?
Why is This getting so much media time?
The reasons this is "newsworthy" to the anti-war faction is obvious… Why is the pro-war faction siezing so avidly on this?
The obvious answer is to beat the liberals to the press box. The right wants to try to prevent the momentum of the left from making him into a hero preepmptively.
Is it bait? Are you taking it?
Absolutely, because at the heart of his decision is an oath that I believe to be very impoortant.
Thousands deploy; one refuses… He’s treated like Moses assailing Pharoh,,, The prophet comes…
But see the left is the one who is assigning him holy relic status. The right sees him as a coward and oath breaker.
I see him as someone who is making a political statement and violating military law to do it. Hence my expectation that he and Ft Leavenworth will someday become very close.
But I too also see him as an oath breaker, a person who has sacrificed an oath for a politcal statement, and that is something I cannot respect.
And yes, this IS the one and only Possum writing…
Nice to see ya
BTW… This is what we get for going on the [pre-emptive] warpath…
How so? I dont think I follow that.
Small Town,
I doubt his time in Prison will be a picnic.
Sorry, shooting is too good.
I want him to reflect on his choice over a large pile of rocks for a long time.
I’ve asked this question elsewhere and I’ll ask it here too:
After Lt. Watada is convicted, how many of his moonbat buddies will take the time to pop and see him at Fort Leavenworth on visiting days?
Here’s the short answer: Damn few, if any, since by then they’ll have lost interest and moved on to some other cause.
The Left will not, and cannot, relive its Vietnam glory days: today, everyone in the Armed Forces, from the generals right down to the rawest, broke-dick recruits are volunteers. They have all taken sacred (remember that word?), serious oaths and are expected to carefully read the terms of their contracts before signing them. If enlistees are too dumb to know what they were getting into, then too bad for them. They have no choice then but to deal with things as best they know how and learn to use the chain of command if they feel they’ve been done an injustice.
Today’s "Moonbat Memo": "This ain’t 1968, there hasn’t been a Draft for over 30 years, and the Armed Forces is an institution that still takes oaths and contracts seriously–because lives depend on them.
Lt. Watada is entitled to a presumption of innocence, and to his day in a court-martial. But, if I were him, I’d start packing my trash, because the Vegas odds-makers are already betting a conviction, almost certainly on multiple counts, will be a slam-dunk.
let me add one more point. I fully respect anyone who chooses to be a conscientious objecto. They have that right, to be opposed to war. The military has a use for them and they can still serve in non combat roles.
He has not chosen that. He chose to say war is fine, just not this one. That makes this a political statement not a moral one.
I do not have respect for it because he has taken his oath of service and traded it for a Cindy Sheehan Tshirt.
This is a stunt, not a principle, and the left is using him as their totem to try and gain momentum.
Fair enough. We see this as the same [real] thing: A symbolic arguing point. Don’t lose the argument.
well, as I have always admitted, I am fairly (extremely) biased about matters military. Religion is about the only thing that is near to the same amount of passion that I have.
But that bias in not just blanket support of the military’s actions regardless of their implications. It is a bias and a loyalty to the princoples that are the core values of the military, which all service members are supposed to uphold. It is that that my bias goes towards: A defense of what the military truly is, not what it is represented as.
And that is regardless of the direction of the issue. For example if it is actually proven that any Marines in Haditha actually did commit murder, my answer is simple: They should hang. That, to me, is the opposite end of a violation of the oath they took.
As for this LT, I will continue to read what he has to say, and make my final determination.
And as for Haditha, I await the completion of the investigation with the same patience.
we were already at war in Dec 2003 when he joined, with an all volunteer force. Did he think he was just going to sit at a desk?
There is nothing less patriotic than a deserter when he is called upon. He waited until his unit was told they were deploying before saying he wasn’t going. He should be stripped of his rank and be dishonorably discharged and sent to prison. He is not a person other military members can count on beside them and at this point they wouldn’t want him beside them. He took an oath with the military and I think that many are not living up to that oath and should be made to do so. They signed a contract. If everyone who sign contracts decide they don’t want to follow through with their obligation they are punished in one form or another. Either they get punished by loosing a position or loose the item they sign a contract for, which in turn goes against them. Why should someone like this be allowed to just leave the service without any punishment? He should loose rank, be given an article, be charged monetarily for his actions as he signed the contract under false pretenses, be court martialed, and be dishonorably discharged.
When one soldier can do 14 months in Iraq and be given an article 15 for refusing to play Taps for entertainment (following playing it almost daily for memorials) why should this coward get away scott free?
Lots of opinions here, but I don’t see much legal analysis of the issues that Watada’s decision raises. This guy is going to jail instead of Iraq. That doesn’t mean he is wrong or cowardly, just that he is going to jail instead of Iraq.
If I was a CO at Ft Lewis, I would take him at his word, make arrangements to transfer him to a brigade in Afghanistan and ship him out. He has said he does not have the same legal concern about being deployed to Afghanistan. He said it, send him there. Please note in third paragraph below that military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders.
This from Wikipedia:
The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.
Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed, and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which specifically stated that this was not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.
The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders. This defense is still used often, however, reasoning being that an unlawful order presents a dilemma from which there is no legal escape. One who refuses an unlawful order will still probably be jailed (and in some countries probably killed), and one who accepts one will probably be jailed.
The defense was employed during the court martial of William Calley following the My Lai Massacre in 1968. The defense has also been used to defend soldiers during the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal.
Lots of opinions here, but I don’t see much legal analysis of the issues that Watada’s decision raises. This guy is going to jail instead of Iraq. That doesn’t mean he is wrong or cowardly, just that he is going to jail instead of Iraq.
Not so. The legal analysis is that he is refusing an order to deploy, a courts martial offense.
The legal precedent is that if he is allowed to refuse, he opens the floodgates for more, and in a time of war that is not a good thing. They should take a hard line with him, because it has a serious impact on troop readiness.
If I was a CO at Ft Lewis, I would take him at his word, make arrangements to transfer him to a brigade in Afghanistan and ship him out. He has said he does not have the same legal concern about being deployed to Afghanistan. He said it, send him there.
Sure, if that is true, let him do so. It is kinda late though, he will face harassment and retaliation from any unit now. He should have attempted that sooner, not as a last resort. He has now made himself a a nice quandry.
According to another officer at Fort Lewis, he could have done that himself however, via an internal transfer process. hes he? It took several interviews before the suject of afghanistan even came up.
Please note in third paragraph below that military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders.
This from Wikipedia:
The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.
This is interesting, but not relevent, as I will explain below.
The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders.
Bingo
This defense is still used often, however, reasoning being that an unlawful order presents a dilemma from which there is no legal escape. One who refuses an unlawful order will still probably be jailed (and in some countries probably killed), and one who accepts one will probably be jailed.
Bull. Please provide which country an american serviceman will be killed in for refusing to obey an unlawful order. That rational is not even close, if you understand the basis for the law.
But assuming you are right, it is still moot. He is being given a lawful order to deploy.
The Nuremberg/unlawful orders defense is more geared to specific orders to commit unlawful activities, such as if your platoon leader ordered you to kill an unarmed civilian.
It was not intended to allow a conditional mutiny, which is essentially what this is.
For him to say "I dont like this war, I dont want to go" is not avoidance of an unlawful order, because the order to deploy is lawful. He has not been ordered to committ any unlawful act, so he has no deefense..
The defense was employed during the court martial of William Calley following the My Lai Massacre in 1968. The defense has also been used to defend soldiers during the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal.
Yup, it was. And in those cases the people claimed they were ordered to do something that became unlawful related to specific acts of cruelty, not a general act of deployment.
Sorry in his case, he played his hand to soon. He should have deployed, that refused to go on a mission of some sort.
But by refusing to deploy at all, he has (or will) violated at least 2 UCMJ articles, maybe more.
And his conduct while this is being hashed out may open him up for more.
who can blame this guy - an epiphany has been the excuse of thousands of parole applicants, even if they’d done the crime… this guy gets back, listens to Bernie Ward at KGO San Fran (10pm - 1am Pacific) realizes that any and every mission in Iraq is based on deception and will not - wisely - risk the 3000 mile trip there, only to refuse an order then - and have to turn around and risk another 3000 mile trip back…Let’s get this straight: the 80+% of soldiery in Iraq who believe that they’re there to avenge Saddam’s involvement in 9/11 (!) These guys are not the most fact-driven team…but it doesn’t hurt the Rumsfelds and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to have them harbour that nonsense… I can’t blame the guy, despite his oath. At least he IS fact-driven.George W. Bush made a couple of solemn oaths, as well - hasn’t given them a second thought… the consequences for his shirking of duty? What? Self-pardon? Send Bush to Iraq - not to mention his daughters, if the mission is so crucial to American security… Here’s one guy with the integrity to recognize an immoral mission and refuse to do so - not to support him in that brings your own integrity into some doubt.
who can blame this guy - an epiphany has been the excuse of thousands of parole applicants, even if they’d done the crime…
I would expect some of them to actually show remorse as well as an epiphany. The parole boards also tend to expect that.
this guy gets back, listens to Bernie Ward at KGO San Fran (10pm - 1am Pacific) realizes that any and every mission in Iraq is based on deception and will not - wisely - risk the 3000 mile trip there, only to refuse an order then - and have to turn around and risk another 3000 mile trip back…
Oh bullshit. That is pure speculation. There is no legal justification or defense for that.
Let’s get this straight: the 80+% of soldiery in Iraq who believe that they’re there to avenge Saddam’s involvement in 9/11 (!) These guys are not the most fact-driven team…
I dont know anyone who honestly believes he was behind or involved in 911, even if he did have links to Al Qaeda…and he did.
but it doesn’t hurt the Rumsfelds and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to have them harbour that nonsense…
Aside from being extremely cynical, that is patently unfair of you to demonize the majority of troops.
I can’t blame the guy, despite his oath. At least he IS fact-driven.
No, Sadly he is not. He is not only wrong, he is ignorant.
George W. Bush made a couple of solemn oaths, as well - hasn’t given them a second thought… the consequences for his shirking of duty? What? Self-pardon?
He learned how to pilot a fighter jet. Can you?
Send Bush to Iraq - not to mention his daughters,
Why on earth to so many liberals get their panties in a bunch over the Bush twins. Should Chelsea Clinton give up her 6 figure plush not at all family generated job and go too? How about the Gore sisters?
Please…..
if the mission is so crucial to American security… Here’s one guy with the integrity to recognize an immoral mission and refuse to do so - not to support him in that brings your own integrity into some doubt.
I fullfilled my enlistment contract thorugh 12 years of active duty. I served. My integrity requires me to examine the situation and discern the truth.
The truth here is that this guy is making excuses, and he is violating the UCMJ to do it. He knew better.
And his reasons to do so are so spurious and silly that they will not be able to shield him from the consequences.
The blind and rabid nationalism exuded in this article is appauling. LT. Watada is in fact fulfilling his oath. All military service members are in an untenable and impossible position regarding their oath whether they realize it or not. Military members are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic, as well as sworn to obey the orders of those appointed over them. When the orders given ARE a violation of the Constitution there is no solution.
Just because this man may suffer a great deal more for deciding to fulfill one part rather than another does not make him wrong. Are you really going to claim that those who are breaking and fulfilling the reverse parts causing the deaths of thousand upon thousands of people are making a more "patriotic" decision? Blind support of government is not patriotic, it’s nationalistic.
Our government for more than 100 years has been a far greater "domestic" enemy of the Constitution than any outside force has ever been. Government is not a friend to freedom, or liberty and any fool that believes so dersverves no pitty or simpathy when his liberty is gone.
Think me left, and you’d be wrong. Think me right and you’d be wrong. Think me centrist and you’d be wrong. I’m one of those rare birds who actually understands that freedom is not given or preserved by government but is a natural human condition. One of those who understands the Constitution is badly flawed, but is still better than any code in history.
Stand Strong Lt. Watada, there are still people out here who really believe in the wonderful but faiding ideal that was once a great nation.
The blind and rabid nationalism exuded in this article is appauling. LT. Watada is in fact fulfilling his oath.
Clearly he is not
All military service members are in an untenable and impossible position regarding their oath whether they realize it or not. Military members are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic, as well as sworn to obey the orders of those appointed over them.
Actually you should read the officers oath, but I digress.
When the orders given ARE a violation of the Constitution there is no solution.
What part of going to Iraq is against the constitution? Can you show me anywhere where that can be demonstrated?
The fact is that it is a congressionally authorized military action, and by that basis alone it is fully authroized by the constitution.
Just because this man may suffer a great deal more for deciding to fulfill one part rather than another does not make him wrong.
No, the fact he has chosen to disobey lawfully issued orders makes it wrong.
Are you really going to claim that those who are breaking and fulfilling the reverse parts causing the deaths of thousand upon thousands of people are making a more "patriotic" decision? Blind support of government is not patriotic, it’s nationalistic.
Details of these thousands please. As of now all proven travesties are being investigated. But not all deaths there are atrocities, as much as you sing that song.
Our government for more than 100 years has been a far greater "domestic" enemy of the Constitution than any outside force has ever been. Government is not a friend to freedom, or liberty and any fool that believes so dersverves no pitty or simpathy when his liberty is gone.
Oh please.
Think me left, and you’d be wrong. Think me right and you’d be wrong. Think me centrist and you’d be wrong. I’m one of those rare birds who actually understands that freedom is not given or preserved by government but is a natural human condition. One of those who understands the Constitution is badly flawed, but is still better than any code in history.
And since that same constitution has been faithfully used to authroize this conflict, then we are not in conflict.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Stand Strong Lt. Watada, there are still people out here who really believe in the wonderful but faiding ideal that was once a great nation.
Have a seat LT. This is your cell, make yourself at home.
Watada has no honor, since he has disavowed his military contract and oath. He also is a dumb ass if he thinks that he will not become consumed by the currently supportive anti-war liberals after they extract as much anti-Bush PR from his trial as possible. It will all be downhill for Watada after he becomes a passenger on the olive drab bus to Fort Leavenworth. He’ll have his momentary fame, though — won’t he?
Life is about choices; Watada definitely made a bad choice. For that choice, he should do some hard time.
Former 1LT Jack